Talk:EverQuest/Archive 2

Legends of Norrath
In 2007 SoE added a in-game trading card game to a couple of their games including Everquest. The game titled "Legends of Norrath" openes in a in game client and while it doesnt interact with EQ you can obtain in game items from "loot cards" you can acquire while playing the card game. The loot cards are mostly : player illusions, mounts, weapon ornaments (they change weapon model), familiars (provide various buffs such as: hp, mana, regen, levitation, etc)

The addition recieved quite mixed response from players claiming SOE basically sells items this way and those (buyable) items have a too big impact in game (some of first loot cards were pretty powerfull). Might be worth adding a subsection for it. Zmajc (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Zones
Might it be an idea to put this list into a table of some kind?

Perhaps instead of creating 100+ stub articles on each and every zone in EQ a zones of EverQuest article could be made instead? --Mrwojo 21:00, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a better idea. Shall get started on it later unless somebody has an objection. --Kevin 09:53, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * extereemly good idea tooto 19:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have now moved all the text over from the existing zone pages but am unsure what to do with the now redundant pages. Something now needs to be done with the now redunant zone pages and Category: Everquest Zones. --Kevin 22:48, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Individual zone pages should redirect to zones of EverQuest so that they aren't accidentally re-created. We can put the location categories up for deletion at Categories for deletion. --Mrwojo 00:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The wikibook listed at right no longer produces a page of information.

The above proposed article zones of EverQuest has fallen to the AfD axe. Can and should a table or listing be created here? Loosely related to Zones, the picture in the main article with the caption "A Sand Giant engaging a group in a desert-themed zone, Oasis of Marr." is no longer valid, as there is no longer a zone named Oasis of Marr. It was subsumed into a revamped South Ro with the Secrets of Faydwer expansion. The mob still exists, and the 'place' can be found, but not as described. Should that picture be removed, or merely re-captioned? Being very very new to Wiki things I am leery of changing what I find 192.223.226.6 (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to edit remembering the critical Wikipedia policies: items must be verifiable and must be presented in a neutral point of view. (and others you can see on the welcome page.) You can't break anything, but use the "Show Preview" button to make sure what you have done looks right, and if someone reverts your edits, discuss on the talk page rather than just reverting to your version. Re: sand giant pic, changing the caption to say So Ro would not be acceptable, because that is not where the pic was taken. Going into detail in the caption explaining that Oasis doesnt exist any more would be factual, but probably getting too deep into game trivia (WP:NOT). Probably going generic and simply stating something along the lines of "a desert themed zone" would likely be the best approach.GundamsЯus (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I will argue that a breakdown of zones belongs on the many many MANY ***MANY*** EQ sites. Some are linked in the article.  As part of even a VERY robust general purpose encyclopedia, I think that much detail in the gameplay is excessive.  This means that I would probably kill your edit.  With 375 zones to detail, it would be HUGE as an article of its own.  As a segment?  I can't see it.  I would encourage you to discuss this more here.  I'll look up the AfD too.  It may have died long before the axe fell on it.  I never looked at it.  sinneed (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems that Articles_for_deletion/Zones_of_EverQuest_(2nd_nomination) succeeded largely by the argument that there wasn't enough interest on the part of editors to make and keep the article "good". There is also note that such articles tend to gather lots of Original Research and that Wikipedia is not a game guide.  I think letting it die sounds good.sinneed (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

In other media - "similar" - all PoV? Noteworthy? New addition?
Redpen noted that an addition to this section used "similar" which is a matter of opinion, and struck the addition. While this is certainly true, and PoV is to be avoided... I think the addition and the section can stand. I have restored the edit for consideration.

While I am unsure how much value the "in other media" section really adds to a general purpose Encyclopedic article, I do see some value. While these games have not yet reached truly staggering sizes, they are impinging on the "mind" of society at large, if you will, and references to them (and the associated social problems) in general entertainment show that, perhaps even more than the "newsy" press links.

My sense is that if the new addition should not be there, then the section probably needs to go. Perhaps there is some other problem with the addition, and the argument listed is (as all such must be) incomplete.sinneed (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Killed Complexity section
Easily undone if anyone objects. At the time the game was young, it was unusual for games to have fan/info sites. But that is the norm, now, and not Notable at all. Might be worth a mention in History.sinneed (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Winter's Roar
I think an article on Winter's Roar needs to be made. It was a modded EQ engine and server back in 2004, but was shut down. Can anyone help with sources or screenshots? StevePrutz (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

FoH & Guild Information, In General
Guilds in EverQuest generally have a short life-span. It would be pointless to attempt to list information about guilds by guild-name. A generalized, non-specific section on player guilds (which is already included in the EQ subject) is more than enough. Message boards abound which can deal with the listing, re-listing, and tracking of individual guilds in the game.

This is retarded. The original uber-guids of EQ are well-known and should be listed. fohguild.org forums remain a long-lasting and well-known MMORPG resource and developed because of FoH's fame in the EQ universe. Thus it would not be 'pointless' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.230.28 (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

EQMac v. EQPC
The version of EQ that runs on the EQMac server (Al'Kabor) is so different from 'standard' EQ that it should be listed as a seperate version. Generally speaking: EQMac is EQ as it was in October 2002. Old zones: Freeport, Plane of Mischief, Plane of Hate, EC, Oasis. Old spells: lucy.alkabor.com - generally EQMac spells have longer cast/recast/fizzle times and lower damage. Old mob graphics No mini-map. Old Bazaar.

Additionaly EQMac's version of the Planes of Power uses the old non-nerfed version of the major PoP mobs. Making it significantly harder than the current version of PoP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.230.28 (talk) 06:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Added Al'Kabor to special rules servers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.230.28 (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Review
This article often delves into lists, it has somewhat of a lack of sources (that is, the number of sources versus the size of the article), it has trivia, etc. The lists should be discussed in a prose format if possible, which certainly could be done in the expansions section. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, NARH. :) All the best.   sinneed (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that lists are an indispensible means of communicating information on this particular topic. Trying to create flow when discussing the various classes in prose form, would, in my opinion, be a tremendously difficult if not impossible task. Vranak (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

New article suggestion: Everquest Content & Game Mechanics
Hi,

Before actually making the article, I would like to get some feedback on the idea. I would like to start an article, with extensive information about each class, game mechanics (for example formulas for how much XP killing a monster gives in the game, a very complex thing), content (expansion specific), etc etc.

The idea behind this is that this information is being compiled on a huge number of different sites, in strange threads, etc etc. It is hell to find information, and it is hard to get the facts when different sites has different information.

One Article to Rule Them All (tm), or perhaps a more sound division in for example everquest_classes, Everquest_game_mechanics, would be a nice adition to wiki.

Please advice.

Federicodecara (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, read through the other posts, it would appear as if there is a general trend against such an idea. It clashes with my perception of Wikipedia (which is something like "all the knowlegde in the world, for the world"), I would assume that if somebody needs information, and is willinng to share information, Wikipedia should be the place.

Enlighten me :-)

Federicodecara (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, your perception is mistaken. We are, first and foremost, an encyclopedia.  Thus, we include only information that is encyclopedic.  Sometimes, that includes elements of almanacs and dictionaries, but we are very careful not to indiscriminately include everything that could be called "information" or "knowledge".  Your specific proposal is covered by WP:GAMEGUIDE, which makes clear that we aren't particularly interested in providing detailed technical information on how games work.  Concepts and design philosophies are welcome, as long as they're reliably sourced, but getting down into the specifics of a game's implementation is outside of our scope.  Powers T 14:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

For possible inclusion
Director Juan Carlos Pineiro Escoriaza has released a documentary called Second Skin] that "examines people whose lives have been transformed by virtual worlds in online games such as World of Warcraft, Everquest, Everquest II and Second Life. The documentary follows a group of online gamers whose lives are intensely woven together inside and outside the virtual worlds, a couple whose lives have changed since meeting online, and an avid player whose life spins out of control due to his addiction to playing MMOs." 1st, this would need sourcing. 2nd...only the EQ part would be related, needs tighter focus, IMO. I won't revert this out again, but we really have enough unsourced content, I fear.- sinneed (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources are easily found at the article on the film. Powers T 12:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And I am sure an interested editor will one day do so, and craft content to be added to this article based on it. But the above isn't that content.- sinneed (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the sources in the article only mention EQ in a question "Is "Everquest" a harmless distraction or an addictive scourge?" and "An intimate look at people whose lives have become transformed by the virtual worlds in online games such as World of Warcraft, Everquest and Second Life. (World Premiere)".  So it turns out they aren't useful here.- sinneed (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How so? Doesn't that confirm that the movie is, in part, about EverQuest players?  Powers T 17:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Anything about humans is about, in part, EverQuest players. This article is about EverQuest.  Correlation does not imply causation may be related.- sinneed (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not following you here. Powers T 18:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Trying a different approach: Yes, the movie is, in part, about EverQuest players.  This article is not about EverQuest players.  It is about EverQuest.
 * But remember that you don't need to follow me. You have already pointed out that you can source something from the movie that ties to EQ, and place it in the article.  I am not taking it out, even if it is unsourced.
 * The "games such as" quote does not help, since it is illustrative. It doesn't say "the following games: x,y,z", it says "games such as".
 * I don't see how the "Is "Everquest" a harmless distraction or an addictive scourge?" helps, that is a teaser. One could as well ask in a headline "Do tomatos cause cancer?  Answers at 9!" (real news teaser). It is just a question.- sinneed (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I guess I interpreted that one source differently. Sources such as  and  make clear that my reading was correct -- that the phrase "games such as" was descriptive, not merely illustrative.  WarCry even puts their  interview on the subject in their EverQuest section.  As for relevance, I think it helps illustrate the importance of the game if its players were among those interviewed for this notable documentary; anyway, as we don't have an article specifically about the players of EverQuest, this is the logical place to cover notable information on that subject.  Powers T 20:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I see actual information at the Kotaku article... the Hereandnow seems to use the same ambivalent wording. I may have to get that one off Netflix, it sounds interesting. If you get that to stick to the article, I will have to look again at the See-Alsos, maybe they will stick as well.- sinneed (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone thinks it needs to stay here, I am killing the Kerafym/Sleeper's Tomb zone section.
There are no discussions of other zones, the article would be GINORMOUS if there were. I considered trying to clean it up, but... really... it just doesn't fit with the rest of the article. Sinneed (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It ended up here as the result of an AfD. Perhaps the section should be re-focused to something like 'major events in the EQ timeline' and when/if enough items with proper sourcing have been gathered it can be spun off to a seperate article.GundamsЯus (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * True... but no one is cleaning it, and it is a mess. Anyone taking a swing at it?  Or should it just die a quiet death?  Sinneed (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Kerafyrm
Kerafyrm (also called "The Sleeper") is a boss character in the fantasy MMORPG EverQuest.

Originally intended to be unkillable, the character caused a stir in the EverQuest community when the developers of the game (Sony Online Entertainment (SOE) intervened and prevented a group of nearly 200 players from killing him, in November of 2003. SOE later apologized for interfering, and allowed the same group of players to retry the encounter. After a nearly three-hour battle, Kerafyrm was defeated.

Sinneed ... the sleeper was defeated on Rallos Zek, ... 76.179.49.178 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC).

Sleeper's Tomb
In the game, Kerafyrm is guarded by four ancient dragons in a zone called "The Sleeper's Tomb". If all four dragons are defeated by players and are dead at the same time, The Sleeper is awoken, and begins a rampage of death across the game's land of Norrath. This event is particularly unique in EverQuest, because it can only ever be completed once on each game server. Once The Sleeper event is triggered, he will never appear again on that server.

The guild Blood of the Spider on The Rathe server was the first guild system-wide to kill the revamped Ventani (the fourth warder) on July 28, 2001, and therefore wake Kerafyrm. The event caused a stir on the server when the dragon went into multiple zones, including Skyshrine, killing everyone and everything in his path.

On November 17, 2003, after a nearly 3-hour battle, Kerafyrm was defeated. On September 10, 2007, Rashere confirmed on the official Everquest forums that Kerafyrm was bugged at the time of his kill. I can confirm the sleeper's regen one. Whether by pure coincidence or great planning, the zek attack on the Sleeper took place after a patch that broke NPC regen, causing them to regen at a far lower rate than they would normally. The sleeper's normal regen makes him essentially unkillable. -Wrong. The sleeper encounter was difficult because he would Deathtouch every 10 seconds. The encounter description is all wrong too. He would not dissapear after being awaken. When the chinese guild that originally killed the sleeper was doing the event, it was being monitored via the crossrealm channels. When they did finally kill him, a game wide Emote went across, detaling the battle, and the sun being blocked out by all the arrows. The final killblow was delivered by a Ranger, who earned the Title "Dragon Slayer". The only loot was a cloth healm. He is not a boss, he was never intended to be killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmc1184 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As of August 31, 2007, Al'Kabor (Mac-based server) is the one and only official EverQuest server where Kerafyrm still is sleeping.

It has been announced that Kerafyrm will be returning in the expansion Secrets of Faydwer.

Removing and reworking. Also moving it. Sinneed (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

DONE!

Now, if anyone would like to add some citations, that would be cool. I'll try to get excited about it at some point, but I think this is much better now. If anyone doesn't agree, please give it a whirl. I would also love to see FV herself added, although she appears in the game only as part of GM events. I am still dubious about whether The Sleeper merits all this attention. Sinneed (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Come on! Surely someone has something to add or at least something to say! :) Sinneed (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no way to source the "word-of-mouth" story of which guild on which server 1st killed the 4th warder, so I have removed it. If anyone can source this in a useful way, the text is included above and can be copied back. I point out that many of these 1st-kill stories are not accurate. Some guilds avoid public notice and simply *NEVER* tell of their 1st-kill accomplisments. Sinneed (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The deletion note from the removed "Kerafym" article was applied to the EQ article. I removed that tag. If there needs to be further editing to the heavily edited and much-reduced Sleeper section, that is great... roll on. Or kill the section. I remain dubious about its belonging in a general encyclopedia. Or whatever. But the article deletion tag does not belong on the EQ article. The decision on the cited deletion discussion was to merge the article into here... where we have carved away at it. I would argue that the redirect from Kerafym should be removed. sinneed (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone said something about needed source for the first sleeper kill on Rallos Zek. I played the character named "Ornette" in the guild Wudan on Rallos Zek, and I know there's no way to prove that. But soon after the day of the kill I added a post to my website which includes a screenshot of the sleeper's corpse and an excerpt from a guildmate's everquest client log file after he got the killing blow (also, from archive.org before I moved it to a separate page). I have other screenshots of the second fight as well: enraged, 14%, 41%, 44%. This was also published in the Got Game? column where he reprints the serverwide GM message after the sleeper was killed, noting the time, server, guilds, and that it was the first. Another screenshot of --66.45.116.55 (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"Red" vs "Blue"
Under social dynamics, the non-PvP servers were incorrectly listed as being referred to as "green" servers. In fact, they were called "blue" servers due to the player names on those servers being blue in color. Further, the two race war servers, Vallon Zek and Tallon Zek, were merged with Rallos Zek, and that playstyle no longer exists. Not sure how that should be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.252.31 (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't throw out the baby with the bath water, please.
An editor objects that proc came from some other game. Great. Source it and fix it, please. Please avoid wp:deletionism... killing content and source because it is unclear is bad... wp:SOFIXIT.- Sinneed  20:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The text in the article is also more accurate than the source, since it only says that proc arrived at WoW by way of EQ. It comes to EQ from DikuMUD by way of Brad McQuaid, of course, but I can't imagine anybody's ever thought they should write about that. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Re "There, the proc part is gone, but the farm part remains. Happy?" &mdash; I imagine you were talking to Sinneed, but for my part, no, not really happy. The text prior to this edit was at least accurate as far as it went; now it just says nothing about proc, which is sad.  I mean, I'm as alternately amused and disgusted by MMO people's eagerness to throw out their history (and to say things like "gee nobody knows where the term 'remort' comes from") as the next guy, but just tearing out content isn't the way to address that, I don't think. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Restored the deleted content, added clarify tag.- Sinneed  20:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Refimprove article tag
An editor removed the Refimprove tag. I restored it. While I sympathize with the editor's concern that no one cares and that no one is ever going to provide sources, these are not reasons to remove the tag, and there is no consensus to do so. Does anyone else feel the tag should be removed? I do agree with removing the tags in the body. I did also drop the wp:OR section about the business model. - Sinneed  16:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly understood the impulse to remove it (and agree that it's likely to be there forever) but I also agree that the tag provides a rough assessment for the first-time visitor to the page of how Wikipedia-reliable the information is. It's more useful being there than not, and so I (kind of reluctantly) agree that it should stay.  JohnInDC (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you and as I noted in my comment to the person concerned, 'no one is going to fix it' is not a justification for removing tags. I also agree with JohninDC that these sort of tags aren't just useful to tell editors what needs to be fixed, but to tell readers what problems they should expect with an article. Nil Einne (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is. The boilerplates reduce the quality of the article. The rest of the article remains the same, with or without it. So, it only detracts. Do you really think that a 'new visitor' really cares of the description of a Beastlord isn't 100% up-to-date or spot on? Of course not. And if they notice something and are aghast at the shoddy fact-checking, well by God they can fix it themselves! It's just so simple, and I don't see why you guys are being so obtuse on this issue. Vranak (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "The boilerplates reduce the quality of the article." - wp:article tags - tags indicate problems with the article. "So, it only detracts." - no, it does not. Again, see the article tag discussion, if interested.
 * Beyond your objection to article tags, which does not belong here, would you care to add any reason to remove the tag from this article?- Sinneed  17:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good heavens no. Just looking at those tags drives me nuts. It's antithetical to the cooperative and trusting goodwill that makes Wikipedia work. Vranak (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, the Wikipedia community does not agree with you. If you would like to sway the community to your point of view, please pursue doing so. Perhaps an wp:RfC after you make your case, perhaps at wp:article tags.-  Sinneed  17:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Such a dishonest approach. You can disagree with me, but don't drag in these anonymous masses that supposedly agree with you on general principle. If they really care, then by God they need to speak up, here and now! Because so far it's just a couple of you. Vranak (talk)
 * Various editors, in various venues, have, as we have here, pointed you to various documents showing you the community wp:consensus. wp:article tags...wp:no personal attacks... wp:verifiability... wp:five pillars... wp: no original research.  Not faceless masses... documents that provide guidance you should follow.-  Sinneed  18:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, if you want to put down your foot and say 'I must see these tags up', that's fine, I can accept that. Even if I think it's not the best result. But if you want to talk about other people -- don't. They need to come here and speak for themselves. You cannot foist a presumed consensus view on me. I will not have it. Vranak (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Look, if you want to put down your foot and say" - I don't think anyone who has commented has said anything like this, except you. "You cannot foist a presumed consensus view on me. I will not have it." - No such attempt is being made.  Various editors have directed you to various documents.-  Sinneed  18:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Well I am glad to see this fruitless argument has dried up. Vranak (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I hear you saying that no, you have no argument for removal except that you disagree with wp:article tags and wp:consensus. Have I missed any argument for removal except that you believe article tags are in and of themselves, article damaging content?-  Sinneed  18:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What am I saying is that I am sick of this business entirely. I have lost interest. I don't believe you can be helped see the truth of this matter. Vranak (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that if the article does not contain enough rigorous citations to meet Wikipedia's general standards, then that Refimprove article tag should be there, regardless of whether or not anybody is ever likely to do anything about it and how it makes the article look. It appears to be the case here but, as I am a relative "newbie" in terms of Wikipedia editing, I don't yet know enough for anybody to place much faith in my opinion on that matter. JoDOe (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

More details of game dynamics
The article doesn't make clear which gameplay mechanics was available to advance characters, like whether characters had primary attributes, customizable skill set or talent trees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.49.18.203 (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Launch Date
Everquest: Live (playstation version) launched in 1999. Everquest PC version launched years before that. Please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.184.150.254 (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your information is incorrect. EQ beta ended in 1999, and the game went live in 1999.  This is well-sourced, and correct.Shajure (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Class section
In early February somebody completely cut out the class information, citing WP:GAMEGUIDE. Now, I didn't agree with that rationale, and I restored the information last week, but considering things now, I would say that section could be trimmed down, re-focused, improved, and so on. Just not deleted wholesale. So I just wanted to say that I understand the concerns that editor had about this section, and to invite discussion or more moderate revisions. Vranak (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please look carefully at WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT again. Note lines such as "But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts. Detailed coverage of specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, character moves, character weight classes, and so on is also considered inappropriate", and points 3, 4, and 6 from the gamecruft page. This article has extremely excessive descriptions of all of the multitudes of classes, including in-depth explanations of each character's traits, perceived roles in combat, and how to play that type of character. This information is not "essential" to understanding the game; it is, in fact, far too much information for the average reader to digest, or even be interested in.
 * I understand the desire to put every single detail about a game into an article; I wrote my fair share of game cruft when I was younger and less familiar with how Wikipedia should be written. At some point though you have to realize most people don't even remotely care about this much level of detail, especially for such an old game. It's easy to think that every aspect of a game is important and lots of people will want to know every detail, but articles written in this manner end up only being interesting to hardcore players who already know all of these details anyway. It is not the right approach to write articles for people who already know the subject matter; the true purpose of an encyclopedia is to help bring information to people who don't already know the information. An article of this length is frankly daunting to the casual reader, and will almost certainly deter several readers entirely from reading the article for each one who actually reads any of the cruft.
 * Also keep in mind the sheer volume of the text you have reinserted. I invite you to try to read my old revision of the Starsiege article linked above, and see if you can even trudge through it, and then consider that the classes section of this article is the same length as the entire text of that revision of the Starsiege article.
 * To breakdown a single random example from the class section here:
 * "Shadow Knight: a durable tank class; this Warrior/Necromancer hybrid has vampiric and damage-over-time spells. Shadow Knights have the unique ability to Harm Touch (do direct damage) every 72 minutes, the power of which increases in absolute terms but decreases relative to enemies' hit points as a player levels up. Since this class is a hybrid, they must wait longer than the Necromancer to begin receiving spells, and longer yet for the more potent incantations such as Summon Corpse and Feign Death. In most cases the level difference in spell acquirement is +25-30 levels. For example a Necromancer might learn a certain spell at level 4 that a Shadow Knight is unable to learn until level 34. Eventually, Shadow Knights are able to summon a weak skeleton pet, summon players' corpses who are in the same zone as them, and cast the spell Feign Death, similar to but slightly less reliable than the monk's feign death skill. The feign death spell allows the Shadow Knight to function as a "puller" for a group when successfully casting the spell allowing them to clear their aggro list by pretending they are dead. Their necromantic abilities give them great power over the undead, allowing them able to do more damage to those opponents."
 * Notice this quite flagrantly and completely violates point 6 of the gamecruft policy, forbidding "Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts. Specific point values, achievements and trophies, time-limits, levels, character moves, character weight classes, and so on are considered inappropriate. Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry. " The section on the Shadow Knight discusses many specific spell and exactly how they function, talks about how abilities are earned and at what levels, and describes how to play as that character. For those who haven't already played the game, this is far too much overly specific information, given all at once and out of context, and as a non-player I would be hard pressed to remember it even if I wanted to. Thus I gain no more "essential" understanding of the game than I would from being given a one-or-two-sentence description of what a tank is and being told "there are three tanks".
 * This type of information does not belong on Wikipedia. If you are passionate about the game and all of the details of it, I suggest you check out a dedicated Everquest wiki (of which there are several easily found through Google). Meanwhile, this Wikipedia article should give a broad overview of gameplay, but little or none of this 20 kilobytes of game-guideish material about the classes. Those who want to know all of the intimate details of the game can seek out external resources such as GameFaqs or the aforementioned EQ wikis. Some guy (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, go ahead and delete that section again. I'll go brush up on policy. Vranak (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've shortened the section to a brief description of each class category (tank, healer, dps, etc) and linked the categories to the relevant Wikipedia articles regarding those MMO archtypes (for the ones that I could find articles for). I'm sure the description of each class category could be expanded slightly, provided policies are followed, but shouldn't contain descriptions of each of the 16 classes. Some guy (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Caster Classes
The article currently states there are three caster classes, which is incorrect. There are four 'cloth wearing' caster classes: Enchanter, Magician, Necromancer, and Wizard. Shamanistic races do not have a caster class (Barbarian, Troll, Ogre, Vah Shir) and are incidentally the largest playable races ingame. Trolls and Ogres may choose to play as Death Knight, Shaman, Beastlord, or Warrior; Barbarians may choose Warrior, Rogue, Shaman, or Beastlord; Vah Shir may choose Warrior, Rogue, Bard, or Beastlord but not Shaman.

The most dependable tank class is the Ogre Warrior or Shadowknight for their racial innate resistance to stunning blows. An important trait for maintaining 'aggro' on a monster's 'Hate list', keeping it pre-occupied. Mobs attack the closest players in the order of highest on their Hate list first. High direct damage, slows, mobility and resistance debuffs, damage over time and heals all generate Hate.

Players often characterise Beastlords as a Monk-Shaman hybrid (armor restriction, combat style and lower tier shaman spells) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.90.196 (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

AA
The article talks about AA but doesn't explain what it is. Could someone elaborate please?159.41.1.23 (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

AA = Alternate Advancement. After characters reached the level cap there was no way to continue developing a character. Thus a scheme for Alternate Advancement introduced an AA Bar much like the level Bar. AA's put points into Attribute stats, new Abilities, and others. The first AA might need 1 AA point, its 2nd level requiring 2 AA points and the 3rd level another 3 AA points. There are also AA Archetype abilities (Class specific) with successive ranks depending where AA are being spent, the character level, expansion pack and how many points have already been spent in pre-requisite AA ability trees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.90.196 (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

EQ Mac forum (new discussion)
The section on the EQ Mac forum is sketchy at best and doesn't belong in the article in its current state. We generally do not include information on third-party materials or resources for a game unless they have notable coverage in notable sources. The section previously had a "reference" which was just a link to the forum, completely unusable as a "source".

Per standard policies on Wikipedia, you need to find some reliable coverage of the forum. For example, an article on a gaming news website, such as GameSpot, 1UP, IGN, etc, discussing the issue with the official forums and mentioning the importance of this third party forum, would be sufficient. Some guy (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think if you took as hard a look at the rest of the article and its sourcing you'd wind up removing large swaths of it - three-quarters of the history section, for example. I appreciate that Wikipedia's standard policies require reliable coverage for inclusion but if you are going to apply the policy to remove a part of the article that has remained in place for 5 years - following Talk page discussion and consensus - then why not apply it evenhandedly?  I am going to restore the link, add a note to the section stating that it needs a source, and then go find one.  I think that is also permissible under WP policies.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I located a specific reference concerning the inability of users to log into the official forums and have substituted it for the general link that was present before. I also added a "citation needed" template for the rest of the paragraph, removing the broader "no sources for this section" template.  The cited source, and the call for additional citations, are not out of line with the rest of the article's citation quality, and the specificity of the ref eliminates the complaint that it is just spam.  I will continue to look for more specific citations but, as with much of the material in the article, finding reliable 3d party sourcing for this now kind of old (in computer gaming terms) material may be difficult.  JohnInDC (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've updated the OS X server information and just now added a ref into the official SOE forums in support of the assertion that Macintosh support had largely migrated to a third-party unofficial server. It's indirect support but quite clear - in this particular posting in the official SOE forums, a poster asks SOE how to install and run the new Intel version of the program.  (Scroll to the bottom to see this.)  That information is not present on the official SOE site (or at least, not easily located), so another poster directed the person to a comprehensive discussion at the unofficial 3d party site.  JohnInDC (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Trust me, I am more than willing to remove huge swaths of bad or unsourced material from the article. Anyway, thank you for your cleanup efforts. I will take a look at what you've got. Some guy (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * John, per WP:SPS, "Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." Some guy (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I remember your prior cleaning events, and had no problem with them. These game articles can become pretty heavily encrusted with arcane stuff of interest to only the hardest-core or most devoted gamers, and need to be swept out occasionally.  I agree too, of course, that forum postings and the like pretty rarely achieve Wikipedia reliability.  Part of my original concern with your edits was what seemed to be a peremptory removal of material that, sketchy sourcing notwithstanding, had been included in the article following a Talk page discussion and had been sitting there for 5 years undisturbed.  Anyhow that aside I think I have addressed any concern that the link is bogus or spam.  The more precise ones now at least tend to support the point to which they are attached, certainly moreso than the original blind link.  That would seem to leave three choices - 1) leave the material about the 3d party forum in, along with the tangential / probably unreliable source (inasmuch as it does at least tend to support the point); 2) leave it in but leave it unsourced; 3) remove it as both insufficiently sourced and inconsequential.  In my view it should be (1) or (2) on the grounds that the point is brief and neither fan cruft nor particularly controversial.  It is also one of those things that is peculiarly hard to source properly.  It does no particular harm, and it can be tagged for improvement in the hope that some editor, maybe even me, will one day turn his or her attention to it and clean it up.  Anyhow that's MHO.  Thanks for talking.  JohnInDC (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

An open challenge
We have this article well-covered with boilerplates, warning of potential inaccuracies. It may be impossible to ever find solid citations so that we can remove the plates. In the meantime -- is there anyone here who really believes that some of this article may be wrong? Or are we just assuming that, because there are no citations? Sinneed? Nil Einne? Anyone? Vranak (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't think of anything that's wrong. But without citations to reliable sources (which admittedly aren't going to be easy to come by) then the accuracy of the article depends entirely on the continuing oversight of editors who simply know, in personal experience, what's correct and what isn't.  Citations to reliable sources make it possible for any editor to police accuracy; and while the citations are visibly lacking here, the absence may not be so obvious to the naive or inexperienced Wikipedia user and I think that the single and fairly unobtrusive template is a useful flag that this article lacks the objective underpinnings of nearly every other one.  JohnInDC (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So, if I can remove the commentary -- you do not have any reason to think that we need these tags. I mean, the rationale is all well and good, but it's totally unconvincing, at least to me. You are basically pandering to an imaginary audience that you think would be ever-so-concerned with these matters. I very much doubt anyone really is. We're being overprotective of a group that doesn't even exist. Vranak (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by an "imaginary audience". Who do you imagine is reading this article?  The three or four of us who periodically edit it?  Other editors looking for places to slap templates?  People who want to learn about Everquest?  (This page is, after all, the first non-paid, non-Sony site to come up on a Google search on the word.)  Why shouldn't those users be alerted to the flaws - within the Wikipedia universe - of this article?  What about *this* article should exempt it from those rules?


 * I don't mean that to sound as contentious as it does, because I really don't understand. The article is not up to Wikipedia's sourcing standards.  Articles like that get templates put on them, as a flag for users and a prompt for editors (and I don't know of any esthetics exception).  JohnInDC (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The flaws? What flaws? This is exactly the crux of my point. If anyone has reason to suspect there are flaws, they should address those instead of putting down boilerplates, which is a cop-out. It's a community effort to make this article work, but boilerplates do not constitute 'effort', they are like giving up and walking away. Spraypainting a tree 'this needs to be checked for deadfall'. But it just makes the tree ugly, for no good reason. Same goes for this article. Vranak (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The flaw is not in the substance. The substance is fine.  The flaw is that the article is not sourced to Wikipedia standards.  (Unless, you think that it is - in which case *that* is the discussion that should be taking place here.)  Wikipedia is like a math test - the correct answers aren't enough.  You need to show your work too.  This article doesn't show its work.  JohnInDC (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No. You don't need to show your work. If I believe it's correct, and you believe it's correct, then we don't need the added clutter -- especially since it will likely stay there forever. And I really doubt that anyone is going to see the boilerplate and say, ah yes, I will find a source! Because after all, there are no sources. How could there be? Sony could tweak things and then whatever info is out there becomes irrelevant and out-of-date. Really guys, we need to exercise some common sense here. Nevermind the usual rules of sourcing. This article has different parameters, and that cannot be overlooked.


 * And I mean really, why on earth would any reputable news source ever discuss the intricacies of each character class, detailed gameplay, and so on? And why do we even need to bother with such things. Between all the people who know EQ inside and out, and who come by this article regularly, we can arrive at a solid article with very few citations. We already have, I would say. Vranak (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess I don't have any problem enduring the minor esthetic affront of a "reference" template for as long as the article is, in fact deficient (or until there's some suitable exception devised to what I have always supposed to be universal Wikipedia policies regarding sourcing and original research). JohnInDC (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright, well I've run out of steam on this minor niggle for now. I will probably come back with renewed determination sooner or later though. Vranak (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I must admit, this is the first time I've seen determined opposition to the basic idea behind Wikipedia's quite-clear verifiability policy. Powers T 20:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at my early edit history, you will see I had that same problem: I wanted WP to welcome to-me-reasonable wp:OR, since the subject was *obviously* (you may laugh now) important and verifiable sourcing wasn't possible.  I have run into this argument a few times since, and sometimes with this level of intensity (partisan articles, religion, schools, race, etc.).  There is an entire Internet for wp:OR. Coming to understand that everything that doesn't meet wp:V, and that needs to be published, needs to be published elsewhere is a non-trivial learning experience for some of us.  It was for me.-  Sinneed  20:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems that this topic is very similar to the one above, i.e., "Refimprove article tag", where I have previously stated my opinion that this tag (and, by extension, any similar tags) should be used everywhere applicable, with it appearing to be the case for this article. JoDOe (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know or understand what you dudes are raging about here, but it sounds like the Citation Needed tags? I don't know. At any rate, those will be taken care of shortly. The first one for Keith Parkinson creating 'much of the artwork' was patently false, and thus that part was removed. He did create the box cover art, though. Reference: http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/everquest/credits 98.199.139.8 (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, very much, for working on the CN tags. The article tag is used to note an article that suffers from substantial or pervasive need for sourcing.  It is used when tagging every source needed or strongly desirable would disrupt the article (it doesn't take many tags to do so).-  Sinneed  20:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

While there appears to be plenty of sources, this article does not make good use of which sentences/paragraphs have derived from which references. Along with that, there appears to be quite a number of game cruft, but that could be another matter to handle. About the sources themselves: some of them are obviously not permitted. One involves another wiki and some others involve unnotable fansites that should not be used as references. The article still needs quite a bit of work before the Refimprove tag can be removed. IAmSasori (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

2013

 * I'm kinda late to the game here, but is Keith Parkinson's site sufficient citation for his hand in the artwork? Here is the original box art as well as box art for Ruins of Kunark, Scars of Velious, Shadows of Luclin, and Planes of Power. I think that these were only recently re-listed so this page may not have been available for citation when the reference was originally requested. - PathToEternity (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say no. It's a store page. It doesn't make any factual statements or claims, it just shows some pictures and their prices. Some guy (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Who named EverQuest?
In case anyone is interested, Steve Clover is credited with naming EverQuest. Source: John Smedley in a book called Gamers at Work: Stories Behind the Games People Play, 2012, page 170 (ISBN 978-1430233510). He says, "A guy named Steve Clover came up with the name." Someone can add that somewhere appropriate in the article. Adraeus (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

free to play
according to the official website it is free to play. please include it in the article.84.212.111.156 (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Was Ultima Online not Commercially Viable or Successful?
A recent edit was made to this article by an unknown to change the introduction from;

"It was the second commercially viable MMORPG to be released, after Ultima Online, and the first commercially successful MMORPG to employ a three-dimensional game engine."

to;

"It was the second commercially viable MMORPG to be released, after Tibia, and the first commercially successful MMORPG to employ a three-dimensional game engine."

Indeed Tibia seems to have been released in it's alpha stage before Ultima Online (but never left beta until after 2000: Tibia Beta 6.0 is here! (official forum post)) but this change makes it look like Ultima Online was not commercially viable since Tibia is 1st and EverQuest 2nd. Furthermore, reading from the Tibia website on the Wayback machine states that CipSoft only thought about going commercial in April 2001 (Poll about payment methods (official forum post)) way after Ultima Online was making money.

I don't think this change is very helpful to understand the landscape of MMORPGs of the time period and also lacks any references to back it up. We should either get references that state that Tibia was in fact the first commercially viable and successful MMORPG (making EverQuest 3rd and Ultima Online 2nd) or we should remove this part of the introduction and perhaps give a list of notable games from the time period which EverQuest was competitive with. StevenIMilne (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Source

 * https://web.archive.org/web/20001206081000/http://gamecenter.com:80/News/Item/0,3,0-4963,00.html
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20010525113218/http://www.gamedaily.com:80/news/march_99/3_8/index.shtml
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20010417200642/http://www.gamecenter.com/News/Item/Textonly/0,78,0-3201,00.html
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20001214012200/http://www.gamecenter.com/News/Item/Textonly/0,78,0-3324,00.html
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20010112084200/http://www.gamecenter.com/News/Item/Textonly/0,78,0-3731,00.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyBlackwing (talk • contribs) 23:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Controversies
I'll be happy to remove the section, but there was actually some useful content there... it just doesn't belong in a controversies section, it [the useful content] should be in the [body of the] article if it belongs. Shajure (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Massive retrospective
https://www.pcgamer.com/breaking-the-internet-the-story-of-everquest-the-mmo-that-changed-everything/ TarkusAB talk 02:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Structure of the article (contd.)
As written in this article, there is nothing controversial about the "Sociological aspects of MMORPGs". It should be it's own numbered section. User:RayG75 4 December 2019 4:40 (UTC)

Project 1999 advert
I am concerned that the Project 1999 section is an advertisement for a game Very Similar to EQ of 2001. "Relive the Classic Everquest Experience as it was from 1999 to 2001. Project 1999 is a free to play Classic Everquest Server, unaffiliated with Daybreak Game Company but operating under legal permission. Our goal is to restore the magic and difficulty of the original Everquest game, including the mechanics, interface, and challenges of Original Content, Kunark, and Velious. Project 1999 is the most popular and most accurate reincarnation of Old School Everquest."

Perhaps a mention of there being new games recreating much of the old EQ experience? They can have their own articles if they need this much space? In any event, I propose a SHARP application of the editorial axe.Shajure (talk) 09:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

No concerns? No thoughts for/against? Shajure (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the advertisement. It can certainly be readded without the hype and with more than self-published sources and a single web site. It would be a *SMALL* mention, without advertising, or I'll apply the editorial hatchet again.Shajure (talk) 03:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Man there was a LOT of Project 1999 advertising in there. Trimmed it down some more.Shajure (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

P99 Inaccuracies
The p99 promo has many inaccuracies. Technically no one developed the p99 experience, it was hacked. The 'developers' of p99 should only ever be called hackers. The experience is a long, long way from original Everquest. FTE shouts, changes to mob agro, spawn timers, even loot tables. Newer expansions were released to move top guilds along, away from perma-farming pixels from the same mobs endlessly. p99 locks players into that mindset. Brad is quoted saying "the Luclin expansion is what he considered the last of the 'Classic EQ' he had envisioned" but as the acknowledged developer, is ignored by the p99 hackers "because it would upset druids and wizards who gouge porting fees."

119.77.86.171 (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I applied the editorial axe. Please give it a look.Shajure (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

"Enchanter (character class)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Enchanter (character class). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 12 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Not a very active user (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

This source has been removed twice without explanation.
I'll restore the ref tomorrow unless there is some explanation.Shajure (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)