Talk:EVE Online

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of massively multiplayer online games. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the the assessment scale.

	To-do list for EVE Online:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Iron out storyline section. Too wordy. Summarize and keep link to Official site. More graphics! Consider making the current thumbnails smaller. Screenshot of mothership in the proper expansion

	EVE Online was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision.
Article Milestones Date Process Result August 7, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted November 28, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed Current Status: Failed good article nominee

The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Shatner (talk) — Battlehamster (talk) — Xasf (talk) — Richard Slater (talk)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
CVG Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article is on a subject of low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
CVG To-do: edit  Gaming Collaboration of the week: Baldur's Gate series Expand: New CVG Articles, Normality, Pac-Man World 2, Operation Flashpoint: Elite, Call of Juarez, Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar, Ford Street Racing, Betrayal at Krondor CVG Peer Review: List of F-Zero titles, Kya: Dark Lineage, Wii Remote, Dynasty Warriors 4, The Sims 2, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Kirby's Dream Land, Electronic sports, Fire Emblem, Dante (Devil May Cry), The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Final Fantasy XII, Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit), Classes in World of Warcraft Cleanup: Age of Mythology, Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, Betrayal at Krondor, List of Nintendo trademarks Merge: Deletions / Essential articles / Magazines Assess and Prioritise articles (Log)

Archives
July 2006 1 | 2 Sept 2006 1 October 2006 1 November 2006 1 December 2006 1 January 2007 1

Contents 1 Unbalanced? 1.1 weaknesses and downfalls 2 That EVEWiki link 3 Clean up 4 Battleclinic Link 5 In-universe 6 The portrait picture 7 kugutsumen

[edit] Unbalanced?

As far as I can tell, this article contains absolutely no criticisms of the game at all. No mention is made of the fact that it's very difficult for new players to get established, that CCP actually condones types of grief-play that would get people banned in most other games, or any number of other issues the game obviously has. It appears to have been written to include only positive aspects by a very small, very active, very vocal group of Eve supporters that seems to appear everywhere. -Graptor 66.161.206.46 22:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• What you have stated in your post are opinions, not facts. To many players, the ability of a player to engage in nonconsentual PvP is considered a good, not a bad thing. Sure, some people don't like it, but that can be assumed without any further statement. The idea that it is difficult for new players to get established, however, is complete BS: in almost any other MMORPG, one cannot even participate in PvP until one is max level (see World of Warcraft) but in EVE Online, you can jump into combat on your first day and be quite effective. If you're going to ask for a criticism section, cite reliable sources and don't cite common myths. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 01:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This is because criticisms are by definition not a neutral point of view and do not belong in a wikipedia article. There is plenty of criticism of EVE available on various game sites and blogs and this article even links to some of them. --Sindri 10:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

But by that token surely positive comments are also by definition non-neutral. The criticism levelled here is that the article is entirely positive. Having played Eve in the beta and for about a year afterwards, and having made a good chunk of change selling currency on ebay, before leaving the game out of disgust from the chronic mis-management of the economy and combat, I have a wide range of criticisms to make. Toby Douglass 12:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh...I would think otherwise. There are criticism sections all over articles, even FA-quality ones. If there is notable and important criticism of something, it should be in the article. Though generally I have found that criticism sections focus on very specific things, often critical media coverage. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 11:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware there is very little content available that is of sufficent quality to warrant using as references in Wikipeidia, you look through the gaming magazines (i.e. publications with editorial oversight as per WP:RS) and they are all very positive about EVE, sure there is also a large number of forum posts and blogs saying how bad EVE is but for the most part they don't meet the requirements of WP:RS. If somone can provide links to good quality and reliable sources, then please either create a subsection of the article or post the sources in here and another editor will pickup. As to the regular contributors to this artilce, asside from Dark Shikari, I have never heard of the other editors. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 12:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

IMO, adding criticisms of the game, would be a bad idea - it might put people off the game, who have come here to find out information. If you want to go set up a wiki of your own to put EVE criticisms on, be my guest - but at far as putting it on this particular article - no. - TheChrisD, Halo2Leagues.com Head Organiser 17:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As Wikipedians we have a responsibility to present a Neutral Point of View it is not our responsibility to sanitise the contents of the article to put EVE or CCP in a better light, I would love the article to be one huge advert for EVE, however that is not what Wikipedia is here for. If there is material out there that formally criticises EVE then I will write an section about criticisms, however AFAIK there is nothing significant out there, the media is either ignoring EVE because it dosn't meet their requirements for readership (160K Subs is small in the industry) or they are full of praise. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Presenting a neutral viewpoint means refraining from portraying the subject in any light other than complete factual accuracy. it is not the purpose of a wiki article to judge or review something - merely to provide facts. As such, both criticism and praise for the game have no place in the article - AngryAngryMan 04:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism is always POV, and it is not the role of Wikipedia to Criticize EVE. But factually reporting on criticism can be NPOV, just look at any article about a political figure. Policies on no original research and citing sources apply of course, so no personal rants. I went ahead and created a criticism section, using a Slashdot interview as a source. --Apoc2400 10:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] weaknesses and downfalls

This section is quite clearly highly biased. Should it be removed, or simply edited? despite the author's attack on CCP, EVE does suffer from the presence of macro miners, and also has documented server lag issues, especially in certain focal trade systems, such as Jita. If these issues can be adequately presented without actively accusing CCP of negligence, then this section could be valid, though I would also suggest re-naming it to something a little more neutral, like "Known Issues" - AngryAngryMan 04:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

New to wiki here, I am the dummy who posted about the events of February 16th 2007, without a citation. I have been playing MMORPGs since UO and Everquest 1 beta and I can honestly not think of any game that had at any point over 1000 individuals involved in a single conflict on a singe node (planetside, perhaps?) making the event semi-historic. This forum thread will confirm what happened, although I am not 100% familiar with proper citation, my apologies. http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=477023 69.132.185.8 04:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I played Planetside from a few months before the Liberator patch until a few weeks after BFRs were released.. the biggest battle I can recall ever being in was about 400 players strong, although to be fair that was a LOT of people in that game (and a lot of action and things blowing up). Eve is scaled a bit bigger.. and doesn't really handle the lag well in my experience.. but that probably has just as much to do with the player's own hardware and connection as it does CCP's servers. 139.139.67.70 15:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That EVEWiki link

I'm not trying to get it put back on the page - but can I just ask, how are WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #2 and #13 reasons for removing it? EVE Wiki IS related to EVE Online and most likely has more accurate material on there than it does here.

However, I do understand WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #12 as a reason for removing it.

- TheChrisD, Halo2Leagues.com Head Organiser 13:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

I put a clean up tag on this article because it doesn't exactly conform to wikipedia-style articles and its too long. AllStarZ 06:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed at 60KB the article should either be reduced down to below 50KB or split. Could you give us more details of the issues you have with the style of the article? -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 12:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I think you could rid of the ships/weapons section and perhaps some of the more verbose sections on in-game mechanics. Removing 6(and subcats) and 7, the articles down to 54kb and I really dont think it loses anything substantive important or relevant. --89.100.1.161 14:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree about removing 6, although I was going to merge EVETV into the EVE Radio section, as general consensus is that the EVETV article could do with getting rid of. I think much of the explanations in game play could be condensed. I think I might copy the article to my talk space and hammer about with it (wish MediaWiki supported branching and merging). -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 15:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, just not sure how notable eve-radio and evetv really are to include them in the article(especially as eve-radio is listed on the fansites page linked at the bottom, and evetv and its history can easily be found on the eve-online site). --89.100.1.161 16:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Note the in-depth article about the scale of the ships. Something like that is not needed, a simple picture would suffice. Do we need technical milestones? And do we need to dedicate about a sixth of the article talking about patches?

Anyways, I wasn't sure what tag to put on the article. I just wanted to put something in order to draw attention to the state of it. AllStarZ 19:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thank you. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 17:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that dedicating 1/6th of the article to the patch history of the game is not needed. What about a separate page for patch history? Valtam 21:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I would think otherwise; the "patches" listed are not even 10% of the total patches, but are effectively the equivalent of expansions in other notable MMORPGs. Perhaps the info could be trimmed a bit, but the game has changed so vastly since its release 3 years ago that returning players are often completely lost in the changes. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 01:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont see any citations for people judging the major content patches in eve with expansions in other MMO's. Anyway, I cant see any returning player turning to the MCP section to catch up on whats changed. Castor was a massive change to the eve universe and yet it features three sentences. I do believe an article on eve's content patches would be a good solution with a short section saying something about eve featuring regular new content in the forms of codenamed patches and linking to the larger article.

--89.100.1.161 15:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The developers themselves call them expansions. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 19:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

However they dont compare them with other MMO's expansions(at least in my experience), which you tried to do above. --89.100.1.161 14:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

So just because you say so, they don't mean its actually an expansion, even though they say it over and over? An expansion is an expansion is an expansion, and its not our job to judge whether they actually are beyond what the devs actually say. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 14:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps rename the section to Expansions and cut it down to a table with links to the expansion pages on EVE-Online.com? -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 09:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

89.100.1.161, that makes sense - question would be what to do with the EVETV article, I don't believe it is notable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia in its own right. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 17:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battleclinic Link

There seems to be some argument about the inclusion of the link to BattleClinic, three separate users have removed the links citing WP:EL including myself. I am a user of BattleClinic's services and I have always found them to be trustworthy and very useful. I had assessed the link at the time and removed it based upon my interpretation of WP:EL, I would however ask for other editors to take a look at both BattleClinic and [[WP:EL] and present your thoughts. I have attempted to contact one of the users who has levelled criticism against the editors of this article, I have however not received any reply. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 19:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In my interpretation of WP:EL the link stay removed. If it fails to be on #2 reason of WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, the same ins't true for #10 (dicussion forum) and #13 (the exemple givem match perfectly). They are reasons to be proud if this represent a active community, but should not be givem preference to any.

Another problem of this link is a conflict of interest, as explain in WP:EL - Advertising and conflicts of interest even if the site is non-comercial. I simply put this because if you visit the site, you can see the administrator complaining about the systematic remove of his edits. Quoting the WP:EL: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked"

Antonio Carlos Porto 21:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm unrelated to Battleclinic and don't really see a problem with it being linked. Its listed as an official fansite on the EVE-Online site, AFAIK, and this article really does not have many external links at all. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 13:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed there are very few External Links in this article however WP:EL states - "Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.", it also recomends using DMOZ rather than long lists of links. Over the past few months many articles have had a serious External Link cull, which I don't nessecaraly think is a bad thing - WP:EL in a nutshell is "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." - much as though I want to include a link to BattleClinic, and I certainly beleive it is accessable, I can't form a clear argument for it being meritable and appropiate for the article. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 13:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If in fact the editors line of reasoning stands, then the EVE RADIO link and reference needs to be removed as well. Because I believe that EvE Radio is a nice service to the EvE player community, I would hate to see this happen. However, eve radio is a fan site; the service doesn't contribute anything that BattleClinic doesn't, and in fact it contains Google ad-words on the front page which should label it a commercial site. It obviously should be subject to exactly the same lines of reasoning as explored here "against" BattleClinic. What I'm hoping to impart to you is the understanding that there is a strong difference between a fan site that simply hosts user forums or 'cheat codes' ... and an active, community-service related site that builds tools to further other user's enjoyment of the game. I submit that you need to create a new category! 69.107.111.238 23:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Chris Condon

EvE Radio is only linked to indirectly as a reference(now), it isnt advertised in the article itself or under fansites. Eve Radio is notable for partnering with CCP at certain events and providing staff for EVE TV(although personally I think it should be removed as extraneous). Battleclinic isnt especially noteworthy other than for the fact that some people kept re-adding the link for no reason to the eve-online article.--89.100.1.161 01:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"...isn't especially noteworthy" is opinion that, in the context of the above comment, appears to read as a 'snipe' against BattleClinic and is not a valid reason for keeping the site un-listed. The site belongs under the "Fan Services" category because it provides just that. Example: the 2005 edition of the New Player Guide (freely downloadable and released under a share-alike Creative Commons mark) was downloaded over 10,000 times, and the revised 2007 edition that went up last week has been downloaded 1,243 times already. So why do radio stations get exclusive mention under "fan services"? Is this 'media-discrimination' by certain editors? Is one form of fan service 'more worthy' of listing than another? As of yet there are no good reasons listed here why the site should not be mentioned. There's lots of emotion, but the argument for inclusion is stronger, logically.

Actually, "Fan Services" used to be "EVE RADIO" section on the article. This change was made by me to tone-down the favouritism shown by certain editors drooling over the EVE RADIO section and the related EVETV article. I dont mind that the fan service section is revised. Perhaps removing the names of these radiostations and TV-services entirely and just note that which kind of fanservices there are and that they can be found in the DMOZ article linked to in that section // LordSilence

[edit] In-universe

I'm considering trying this game out, and came to this page for some quick information on it. However, I see little information here from a real-world perspective. Aside from the introduction, "Cost", "Graphics Engine and Windows Vista" and "Linux Support" sections, there is no meaningful information for someone who hasn't played the game. Indeed, the long and detailed information on the in-game economy, racial factions and so on are better suited to a gameplay and strategy site. And that's why I've added the in-universe tag. --Boradis 01:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Wait... if we're not supposed to write about stuff related to the actual gameplay, what should be written about? —Dark•Shikari^[T] 01:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This is true, but still we need change some sections to better represent this as a encyclopedia article. Antonio Carlos Porto 02:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Good examples of articles on video games are any of those listed here: Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Sport_and_games, or at least they were good examples at one time. --Boradis 18:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a casual Wiki-browser and I just reviewed the StarCraft article since it was listed as a featured article. Attempting to compare EVE to StarCraft is very difficult at best as they really are two completely different games. StarCraft has more "real-world" information because it lacks a persistent universe and individual players can customize the game, which is done while not playing it, in addition to other differences. Tangible things outside of the game like this simply don't exist in EVE (this would likely be considered hacking the client). I also noticed that there was not a single MMO in the "featured article" listing. Having just started to play Eve, I find this a pretty solid article that tries to explain EVE over-all. I would not be able to think of any addition "real-world" information you can add to this article. In addition, I would argue that there are additional "real-world" information throughout the article than the sections you've described. So, I am somewhat baffled at the need for the in-universe tag. --67.151.118.186 15:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If there are no MMOs that have had featured articles, that should tell you something right there -- that the other MMO pages aren't good things to emulate. And heck, it also means the EVE page has the chance to be the first featured MMO! And while this article might be useful to a new player, Wikipedia is not for gameplay guides. It's for giving real-world information about a real-world product, and briefly describing how that product is unique. I admit I'm struggling to keep this in mind on the video game pages I contribute to, but it's still the correct way to write about it. --Boradis 19:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The portrait picture

The caption says it's "An example of the EVE user creation." That sentence is grammatically incorrect, but more importantly: no it's not. It's a portrait of an Eve character. For it to be represeantative of character creation in any way, at least some of the interface needs to be visible. --Ashenai 13:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] kugutsumen

So I know what I added will probably draw questioning, but I feel that its been some allegations have been made by multiple people (especially in the eve-online forum thread pertaining to this problem) that kugutsumen is brilliant at accessing accounts that, shall we say, are not his. While this may or may not be true, it is an allegation that seems to tie into the variety of allegations made when his accounts were suspended especially since the accused (kugutsumen) was a generally accepted EVE Online spy who always seemed to get info that was intended to be confidential at the time.(Also, I believe user specifics are not relevant to the larger article and this should be probably be edited out since the article is too long already.) --Wootonius 12:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Spying is actually a perfectly acceptable and CCP-sanctioned way of playing EVE. Kugutsumen was accused of hacking, not spying. As a member of Goonfleet, I can pretty much confirm that he is a hacker (he hacked many of our accounts, before he decided to go torture LV and BoB), but I have no proof, and there is actual, reliable, public source saying so, so I don't think we can mention it in the article. --Ashenai 13:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but I think CCP's behavior regarding their renegade dev warrants much more attention.. it's sad to see that they've managed to turn the player reponsible for exposing what was going on into a scapegoat to avoid the attention. That dev must be part of the good old boys club in CCP - that kind of conduct would get someone fired anywhere else. 139.139.67.70 15:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You do know that the dev was disciplined last summer, long before Kugutsumen started his website, right? —Dark•Shikari^[T] 18:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

We know it was claimed he was disciplined, we do not know if he was or how he was. --89.100.1.161 21:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that say he wasn't disciplined. If you want to push a conspiracy theory that the hundreds of developers of CCP are all teaming together to lie to the playerbase... push it somewhere else. This is an encyclopedia. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 14:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Dark Shikiri, but I think that other users should be able to voice their concerns. You frequent the forums a lot and seen supporting CCP a lot. I think you're pretty biased // LordSilence

Please stop with the ad hominem attacks and telling me to go elsewhere, I didnt edit the article in regards to kugutsmen and someone who likes spouting off wiki rules when it suits their POV(which you most certainly have wrt eve-online from your history of edits to it) should know better. PS - innocent isnt POV, its a word. --89.100.1.161 09:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of Dark Shikari's viewpoint, there is no source coverable by WP:RS that suggests otherwise. You can disagree, but Dark Shikari is correct here, this is an encyclopedia, not a fan forum. Pointing out policy in the correct context, as done here is not an ad hominem attack. Quinsisdos 09:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:RS, WP:Attribution(specifically questionable or self published sources) WP:NPOV(Attributing and substantiating biased statements). There is nothing wrong with saying "CCP claimed to have disciplined t20 during the Summer" or "According to CCP, t20 was disciplined during the Summer". In fact, according to the WP pages I linked that would be more correct than "t20 was disciplined during the Summer". As for ad hominem attacks, DS claiming that I was pushing a conspiracy theory is quite obviously an ad hominem circumstantial attack. --89.100.1.161 11:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Its not appropriate to say that CCP have not done anything about the latest stuff. Characters have been removed, internal procedures have been initiated. I've changed the sentence claiming that nothing was done to saying that theres debate within the playerbase as to the apropriateness of the response (I'm a goon btw, so my ingame opinion is somewhat the oposite of Dark Shikari. However he is right that the conspiracy stuff has gone far too far.) 58.7.0.146 04:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)