Talk:Eve Online/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

In-game Items RFD

This section currently has 3 subheadings, Ships, Weapons, and Quafe. While I certantly don't object to quafe having a mention in this article, Several other in-game items come to mind that should probablly have a section here before quafe does. (blueprints, skill books, Starbases, POS, Ore and minerals, probes, ammo, rigs etc) While I'm certantly not suggesting bogging the article down with a heading for each of those, It seems like we could bring the section more inline with the market browser headings. To be honest, the more I think about it the more I wonder if we should remove the quafe reference altogether, or move it to the CCP article. I can't find a good spot for it in the eve article. If CCP hadn't tried marketing it, it wouldn't be notable at all, which is why I wonder if it should be moved there. Anyway, I don't mind making the changes if people agree, but I figured I wouldn't make major changes to an article looking for a GA nod without a discussion. Any thoughts on cleaning up and adding to that section?Mdlutz (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The good-article nomination is over. On January 25 David Fuchs decided we had the "concerns not fully addressed". However, personally I didn't ask what he meant. After considerable work we had the concerns addressed. Anyway, from a nomination standpoint you don't have to care what you change. We'll eventually get another nomination. Back to your suggestions. I think the Quafe section would look good in the CCP article. I've moved it there and created a Products section to accomodate for the change. I've also elaborated on what Quafe actually is so the reader of the CCP article understands it. As for the ingame items maybe one other section makes sense. We have Ships and Weapons sections so... hum... well... Looks like "I can't brain today." Do you by any chance have a suggestion for a catchy third section headline?
-- Aexus (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What about 'Structures' for a third section? Things such as outposts, player-owned stations (POS), and jumpbridges play a significant role, especially in 0.0 space. tildetildetildetilde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.73.232 (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think a Structures section does make sense. And to have place for items like blueprints, probes and skill books we could then finish the Ingame items section with Commodities. Guess that would be also fine for rigs and maybe even for ore and minerals. But I'm not sure about ore and minerals yet. What do you think about that? Structures followed by Commodities.
-- Aexus (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Commodities is also good. Perhaps a 'Materials' or 'Construction materials' section for ores and minerals. This could then also include advanced materials and components or whatever super-capital ship construction involves. tildetildetildetilde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.73.232 (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I bit the bullet and added new sections to cover the market explorer. Let me know what you think of the headings. I figured I'd work on it today since eve is offline. I'm sure the content will be expanded and fixed up better than I can do.Mdlutz (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup, Aexus :) Mdlutz (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, no problem. You wrote a hell of a lot of text there - and pretty high quality, too. Fixing the mistakes was a relatively small task compared to how much time you must've spent writing. I got the feeling you had gotten tired by the time you had reached the drones section. It looked kinda blurry. The way I tend to write when I've put out that much text and can hardly concentrate anymore ;-) Content-wise I didn't see much to change or to improve.
-- Aexus (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, most of my edits are minor grammatical fixes as I see them; this is probably the boldest addition I've added to wikipedia. I've been wanting to expand that section for a while. I started it a month ago in a sandbox on my user page, but did most of the writing today while the servers were down. I wanted to have the in-game items section match up with the market explorer headings, which I did, although I combined similar categories to avoid 2-3 sentence headings. I appreciate the feedback. I was a little worried I made it too long. I wanted to go into greater detail, but didn't want to bog down the article. I was getting tired by the end too, I just wanted to get it up and get feedback, lol.Mdlutz (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Economy picture

Granted, the economy of EVE is a massive portion of gameplay, but the picture included I don't think adds much to the veracity of the section. its too small to show any real detail, and isn't exactly an awe-inspiring shot of the gameplay. To most people, it probably just looks like a bunch of gray squares and green bars. Unless anyone has an objection, I'll delete this in a week or so. One of the things on our list is that while we need more images, some of the ones we have are just too big.Brinlong (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

How about an in-game screenshot of the Jita 4-4 undock and the fuckton of ships there? Along with folks filling Local with links to contracts. tildetildetildetilde

If any graphics from the quartlery ecomic letter or similar could been use under fair use, or a similar representation, it could give a much better overview of the economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.108.16.214 (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Images

Right, I don't check this article very much but I see that quite a few people think the images need improving. My main objection is that the screenshots are all very old, and I was thinking I would go gather some new better pictures with the shiny new graphics. If wanted I could get some like-for-like images only with better graphics and hopefully a bit clearer, except for the fleet battle one as I never participate in anything like that myself. I've been adding lots of pictures recently to eve-wiki.net(under user:Runia), so you can have a look over there for examples of what I mean. I think I'll leave all the formatting to everyone else to worry about though. Hopefully I'll get round to this later in the week? (if no-one objects) cncplyr (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally it's a good idea to provide the reader with Trinity Premium screenshots. The article currently has one real-life picture of a developer, the ship comparison chart and five screenshots. The total number of images is fine so we could indeed concentrate on new similarly expressive images to at least partly replace the five screenshots. However, of the 76 images you've uploaded to eve-wiki.net only eight meet the quality standard I'd like to aim for. Two of these eight images don't really fit into this article as they show a jet can and a stargate, respectively. The remainaing six very nice images are those of the Astarte, Buzzard, Cerberus, Harpy, Iteron and the Viator. The other screenshots lack quality in one or more ways, for example they lack contrast, show ships shrouded by clouds, are too dark or feature too much perspective distortion to clearly identify the ship. The six mentioned are, however, very good. Images we can very well replace are:

1. The pod for the Death section
2. Concord ships for the Security index system section
3. The fleet battle for the Combat section
4. The market browser screenshot for the Economy section
5. The Catalyst to illustrate the Background section

Apart from an image for the Catalyst screenshot I don't think we already have appropriate replacements. The Catalyst, however, can be replaced by one of the six mentioned images. For example the Astarte or Harpy. Or, of course, something entirely different still to be screen-captured. The other four (pod, Concord ships, market browser and fleet battle) are yet to be taken. Seeing as you don't participate in fleet battles it would be truly excellent if you took on the work on the first three images. I'm fairly sure we will eventually get something to replace the fleet battle image, too. What do you think?
-- Aexus (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds good, I shall set to work snapping more in the week. I'm not really sure how the market browser image could be improved though. Also I was wondering about the size format of the pictures. As you've probably noticed the images I used were almost all portrait style, as for the ship pages this enabled a larger picture to be used whilst not taking over too much of the writing. However for a proper screenshot a more normal landscape might be more appropriate? In any case I shall have a look around at other game pages and see what they have there, as I don't know how it would affect the formatting. Also it maybe worth considering the type of ship to replace the catalyst, for example something that is common and iconic may be better than another more obscure (but nontheless good) ship. I'm thinking along the lines of a megathron, raven, thorax, something like that? Though for me taking said pictures would be hard as I don't have access to them, at least until I get onto sisi again.
-- cncplyr (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh forgot to mention I'll probably stick anything I take up somewhere else and link to it here on the talk page before we actually use them. cncplyr (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

For the screenshots I think the regular 4:3 or 5:4 aspect ratio is best. Maybe I stand corrected once I see the images you've taken but offhand I'd go with an aspect ratio the reader recognizes easily. As for the Catalyst replacement a more popular ship is an alternative. The Raven is still quite popular - according to the latest Quarterly Economic Newsletter it was the second-most flown ship during the fourth quarter of 2007; right after the Kestrel frigate. A beautiful Raven shot is very well appropriate to replace the not-that-beautiful-anymore Catalyst shot. Regarding the market browser image, I was thinking about that one, too. An anonymous editor above (IP address 219.108.16.214) wrote that an image from a Quarterly Economic Newsletter might give a better overview of the economy than the current image does. I'm torn. It's easier said than done to improve the market browser image. Maybe I get a clearer vision when I write down our options:

1. Leave the current image be
2. Use a screenshot of the Jita 4-4 undock as an anonymous editor suggested
3. Use a graph from one of the Quarterly Economic Newsletters as 219.108.16.214 suggested
4. Come up with an even wickeder solution

I dunno about you but the longer I think about it the more option 1 grows on me. At least while I don't come up with the wickeder solution. A screenshot of the market browser doesn't sound that bad compared to what a Jita screenshot and a graph can convey. Though I'd go with a market browser screenshot with the current interface. That way it doesn't look out of place among the other Trinity Premium images. Anyway, what do you think we should do with the market browser screenshot?
-- Aexus (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Jita 4-4 undock picture would be entirely as suitable as the other suggestions, since now ships "fire" out of the station at max velocity at a random angle 0-15 degrees from the undock point as in Boost Patch.
Goztek (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Eve online wiki now in danish

There is a short Eve online wiki now in danish. Please link to i as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.88.70.75 (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be precise. The Danish Wikipedia apparently doesn't have an article about EVE Online yet. And on which other website can an EVE article possibly be relevant for Wikipedia? Which wiki are you talking about? -- Aexus (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Corp/Clan entry

Any comments on the material I added for corps and pirate clans? I saw it on the to-do list and took a crack at it. Granted, the information is primarily anecdotal and from my own experiences, but I don't know how you'd make a section like that not subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brinlong (talk • contribs) 16:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually... "You did well!" as the Heavy likes to put it. You created a section out of thin air which is usually a skill of Wiki dragons. Respect for that. I've improved its objectivity but other than that I like your text.
-- Aexus (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a short intro to improve readability, and integrated the warfare and pirate clan section into it, and renamed it Corporations and alliances. I like having the warfare section integrated with the corp section, since it was small, and is directly related to corps and alliances, but It's open for discussion. Mdlutz (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it makes sense to explain this aspect of warfare within the corp section. I've changed the order of the warfare and pirate paragraphs so it's easier to follow. The paragraphs now explain corporations in general, then pirate clans in general and finally warfare in detail. Does that make sense for you, too?
-- Aexus (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"Currently the largest and most influential group in terms of systems controlled and the number of stations built is The Band of Brothers who controls nearly 10% of the space available for player control.[34]"

This is no longer true. Additionally, the source for that statement is Joshua Fouritain (or whatever his whole in-game name is). His maps are updated infrequently, and he is a member of Band of Brothers. A more appropriate and widely used influence map can be found here: http://sov.eve-dev.net/latest.php tildetildetildetilde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.73.232 (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to change the source so that it links to that territorial map. Be sure to tell the reader who edits this map though. Also, if the statement you chose is wrong, correct it as good as you can. -- Aexus (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do, as soon as the article is no longer protected. (The map I linked is by the Kraftwerk. alliance.) tildetildetildetilde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.73.232 (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

When DMacks semi-protected the article on January 11 he protected it indefinetely. Semi-protection, however, doesn't mean that nobody can edit it anymore. It means that you can edit once you have an account. Maybe it's an option for you to create an account. -- Aexus (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Never! tildetildetildetildetilde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.63.170 (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

ramblings on a so far unaccurate entry-- the 'clan' term is almost never used in-game or at community sites. Corporation or corp is. not sure bounties makes concord shoot you, however a low security status makes concord shoot you(HUD: name blinking red). anyone can make an alt and place a bounty on himself. bounties is to get an update in a future patch as they don't work well now. people pod kill you if they get the chance, as implants isn't insured and is lost if so is done. people also form corporations and alliances exclusivly for mining, do production, do research on PBOs and trade or what ever else it would be beneficial to do.So people ransom your pod as well as your ship. If your POD is blown up, you loose skill points unless you have bought a clone covering your points (not to be confused with jump clone). Corporation can adjust player tax or invoke a monthly member fee, as well as deciding on how much to pay miners for minerals or run an ops(mining, complexes...) where all goes to the corp. Alliances may do the same in somewhat similar way, even hiring out areas in 0.0 they control, to corps they like and which are willing to pay the fee. A new player is member of one of the NPC corporations. These are imune to war declearations. If a player leave a player corp without joining another player corp, he will be member of one of the NPC corps again. There is numereous one man corporation, or corps with a Main and all his alts, even operating their own POS(player owned structures) to assist their production or and research. It's perfectly possible to run your own small corp. In addition it is many pilots who offers services to create corps if you need one, or even do the logistics to refuel POSs(see sell order forum). IPO things is a popular theme in market discussions. However since there are virtually no auditing tools and ways to secure the investments, this has been just as popular for setting up scams under the name of an IPOs. the wise common player would rarely throw away his money for this. The same may be said for the different banking services as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.108.16.214 (talk) 08:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to improve the aspects you think need improvement. -- Aexus (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a little on political powerblocks in 0.0, and changed the statement on the largest alliace from BoB to "The Southern Coalition". I've changed it from alliance to powerblock because I feel that the blocks are a better way of distinguishing groups of players than alliances, partly because the blocks group similar-minded alliances.
Goztek (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

By Jove!

Should Jovians be listed as a race? they're not playable after all.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 11:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Surely the phrase is "yet" -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• They are still considered races (albeit minor) according to the EVE Online website - http://www.eve-online.com/races/, that after all is what we are documenting. -- RichardSlater ^(About) / _(Talk) 17:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Source Code Stolen

According to massively.com, the source code for EVE: Online has been stolen and is available on the black market. I think this is noteworthy and should be added to the article at some point. 216.117.2.1 (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think this information needs to be part of the article please feel free to either integrate it into a section or create a new section for it. If editors disagree with your change they will discuss and edit the article accordingly. -- Aexus (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's just the code to the client program, and not the actual server-side code (torrents also don't count as the black market.) I read this is actually the second time some of Eve's code was leaked? Anyway, despite some security vulnerabilities in the leaked code being discovered by players, it's probably not noteworthy at this point unless there's either some major reaction from CCP or wide-spread negative gameplay effects from player exploits/bot scripts. tildetildetildetilde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.63.170 (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I agree that this is not yet noteworthy enough. Today massively.com reports, "(CCP has) determined that the code was not leaked by an employee nor stolen." And contrary to yesterday's report of "(CCP) reportedly seeding the stolen source code in an attempt to ban anyone downloading the file who also maintains an EVE account" CCP is not mass-banning players. At least CCP says so according to the first link. So for now I think we don't have to report this. Feel free to contradict me and edit the article as you see fit. -- Aexus (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Massive Lag

Everybody who ever played eve know the problem of the huge lag in this game.

Why is this comment deleted?

200+ in PvP Fight and the epic fleet battle turns into boring and frustrating single-picture show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.44.226.157 (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think the article needs a note about lagginess feel free to edit it accordingly. However, keep in mind that claims need proof. If you do not provide neutral sources that support your claims your changes may become contested and may eventually be removed. Other than that: Be bold!. Change the article as you see fit. -- Aexus (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Death

Buried in the article we have the sentence "Some ships have a market value that is dozens, if not hundreds of times as much as the ship's build cost - as a result, a player who loses such a ship may lose a large investment, with no possibility of indemnification." (emphasis is mine; you can leave it out of the article)

This is just about right. I know death is probably a touchy subject for EVE. Nonetheless I'd like to see this sentence corrected to "Some ships have a market value that is dozens, if not hundreds of times as much as the ship's build cost - as a result, a player who loses such a ship will lose a large investment, with no possibility of indemnification."

Why? Well, in the circumstances described by the first clause, the game provides zero ambiguity for the second clause. If you get reamed, THEN YOU GET REAMED. This is totally central to the game design, and even an ounce of ambiguity should not be permitted.65.125.81.34 (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think this change should be made feel free to edit the article accordingly. Personally I don't mind either will or may; both are fine with me. -- Aexus (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Is an affiliate link appropriate?

I'd like to gather your opinions about the question whether an affiliate link is appropriate or not. AJTheSecond has repeatedly included a link to register a trial account. The link itself is helpful as it helps the reader to verify that actually everybody can register a trial account. However, AJ does not use the neutral link https://secure.eve-online.com/ft/ but instead this one: https://secure.eve-online.com/ft/?aid=103938.

AJ claims that it is a neutral link. However, that's not correct. Here's how you can detect with whom a link to the Eve Online page is affiliated. Firstly, follow the link. Then on the Trinity 14-day trial page follow the link named Affiliate Program at the bottom of the page. On the Affiliate Program page read the bottommost section titled Redirection. Follow the link within that section to see with whom the former link is affiliated. An affiliate link apparently causes the Eve Online site to save a cookie on your machine. The cookie contains the available information about the person or company the affiliation link refers to. That way you can for example follow the link you have edited in the Eve Online article and then find out to whom it belongs.

I've told AJ the same on his Talk page. I've also given him the link to this question. What do you think about affiliate links? Are they appropriate? Are they inappropriate? Seeing as I didn't find a policy or guideline about this topic i follow TenPoundHammer's advice and ask for your opinions. If you do know a guideline that talks about affiliate links please don't hesitate to tell me about it.
-- Aexus (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinions

I think that neutral links serve their purpose perfectly. Seeing that an affiliate link potentially brings money into the wallet of the affiliate I don't think we should tolerate them on Wikipedia. -- Aexus (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Eve Online Talkers,

I am the person being discussed here. I absolutely admit that the link is "affiliated", that is not the issue here. I rewrote the section in question on march 21st because i am intimately familiar with the trial account and game time code section of Eve Online. I also added in a link to the section that shows that I was responsible for linking the people to the Eve Online Trial Account section. The link IS neutral in that it has no different information for anyone clicking on it. The link takes interested persons to the same page they would go through for any other "neutral" source; they are given no different information, and taken to the same page. The only difference is that CCP knows that I was responsible for giving the persons the information to find their game trial. I have also greatly improved this section to include up to date information. I did not repost the information on Shattered Crystal (this information was deleted because it was a link to a store that sold related material) - I realized that this could be considered commercialization of wikipedia, which was not my intention. I think it is fair for me to add in the link saying that I directed the persons to the Eve Online site, since i was the main contributor to that section, and it does give very valuable information (specifically the part that saves anyone $5 from their signup costs).

People who read to the end of the page who have not yet played eve may want to sign up - i think it is fair that a link stays in the text to directly allow people to access that, and since it was my section of writing, i felt it appropriate to add in the code that says that i was responsible for the visit.

That being said, the community has spoken and I will not change the link back unless you guys happen to see my point of view. Also, so that you don't think i am skipping the important part... yes, every user that signs up (in the $20 way that i specifically point out as more expensive than GTC) credits my account for $7 - this helps me keep playing a game i love, and at the end of the month i was going to donate 1/3 of the affiliate commission to Wikipedia (see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate). My intentions were not commercial for this, i want to make that clear. I want to give people the valuable information that helps them to find the game that i enjoy playing, and since i was specifically responsible for the updated content for that section i felt it appropriate to make that known. I would appreciate further input on this, and I actually searched through the guidelines to make sure that this was not discouraged behavior. I could not find anything that discouraged the use of affilated links (especially ones that provided helpful information). AJTheSecond (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that the affiliate link was added back in by you when you said yourself that "I will not change the link back unless you guys happen to see my point of view." I don't see that here, and I wish to add my opinion that it is not appropriate for wikipedia. If there was no other option than an affiliate link, then I'd understand including one. Since there is an option for a neutral link, we should keep it.TheCommodore7 (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

TheCommodore7, I apologize, I should have mentioned this here. We have asked a 3rd party to decide this issue, since there are no rules against using an affiliated link. We have committed to accepting whichever ruling is made on the matter, so for now i am going to undo your change, to revert back to the way the page was for a month with no-one complaining.AJTheSecond (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.TheCommodore7 (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask whom you have asked to officiate this AJ? is there a discussion somewhere outside of this talk page? -- RichardSlater ^(About) / _(Talk) 20:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a discussion on the policy village pump, namely the question Are affiliate links appropriate? Additionally AJ and I talk both on his Talk page and my Talk page. -- Aexus (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I came here because I saw the post on the Village Pump. Adding an affiliate link is absolutely unacceptable, and should be treated as spam/vandalism.-gadfium 22:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, I admit that the affiliate linking does benefit me - thats a nobrainer - I had looked and found no policy regarding it. I am going to leave this alone unless there is some miracle by which someone actually agrees that since i wrote the section it is reasonable that i link using a link that says that i sent the people. Other than that, i am just leaving it alone. Lets tune the "outrage" down okay?AJTheSecond (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

AJ - please don't take this as a reflection upon your contributions, I don't want you to go away from this thinking that your efforts are not recognised or appreciated. I hope you can see that making money out of a Wikipedia article does present a conflict of interest. -- RichardSlater ^(About) / _(Talk) 19:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly hope you did not translate our disagreement with you as "outrage." The free trial section that you wrote was helpful and was important to include in the article. There was one section in which others had disagreement and it was settled in what I would consider a pillar of civility that should be an example for all wikipedia. TheCommodore7 (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)