Talk:Cosmic Encounter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exact quote and source linking Cosmic Encounter to Magic: The Gathering[edit]

Please forgive me as I am still a novice to Wikipedia, and don't have much free time. But I saw this needed a citation, so here you go: From my copy of Magic The Gathering: Pocket Players Guide, ISBN 1-880992-29-9, copyright 1993, in a chapter written by Magic creator Richard Garfield -

"Though there are about a dozen games that have directly influenced Magic in one way or another, the game's most influential ancestor is a game for which I have no end of respect: Cosmic Encounter, originally published by Eon Products and re-released by Mayfair games."

He then goes on to briefly describe the game mechanics of Cosmic Encounter. My quote is ad verbatim, down to where he bolds "Magic" and italicizes "Cosmic Encounter". Freeplay73 (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>>>>I recall playing the original (77) version to DEATH. We ened up playing "four random, hidden, use-em-and-loose-em" powers. And I'll NEVER forget the chanting..."Take away his powers! Take away his powers! Take away his powers!". What a great game.


Why did I make a huge revert?

  • Large amounts of the article were deleted with no reason given.
  • Article was split for no good reason.
  • Graphics were moved around and resized-- they were in chronological order... now they are just in random places.
  • Formatting was removed, making the sections that survived harder to read.
  • Insanely strict interoperation of NOV-- this is not a Political, Medical or Historical article. Common sense would seem to suggest that people's favorable comments about why they like the game are contribution and that it is OK for the article to have a positive slant. Also, no negative comments were ever supressed or expressed. The idea that this is an article that had any conflict is totally in the mind of the editor.

Glen Pepicelli 17:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my edit summaries didn't make it clear. I'll try to answer your concerns.
"Large amounts of the article were deleted with no reason given."
"Article was split for no good reason."
30% of the article was a list of powers (which were split off) and 40% an appalingly-formatted edition history, which I condensed into paragraphs. Most of the actual content is still around.
"Graphics were moved around and resized-- they were in chronological order... now they are just in random places."
They weren't in chronological order, they went 3,1,2. It was my opinion that, for an article about a board game, the infobox should contain an image of the board game, so I moved the online screenshot to external links (where the online version is linked to) and the concept art to the history, as it is illustrative of the game's history. All in line with the MOS.
"Formatting was removed, making the sections that survived harder to read."
Pretty much all I removed formatting-wise was the section titles. I wouldn't say the sections in my version are over-long.
"Insanely strict interoperation of NOV..."
The article as it stood was very, very positive about the article - on and sometimes over the border of advertising - especially
  • "has the capacity for nearly infinite variety"
  • "The true depth and beauty of the game"...
so I removed those lines. You seem to think that game articles shouldn't be held to the same quality standards as other articles. I disagree.
Hope this helps you understand my edit. Percy Snoodle 17:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Spin-Offs" Section[edit]

It was unnecessary, and inaccurate information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.235.194.225 (talk • contribs)

Under what criteria was it "unnecessary", and in whay ways was it inaccurate? Percy Snoodle 17:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dune is similar to, but not "based upon" Cosmic Encounter. Many people look at the two games, see variable powers, and assume they are the same thing, but this shows a very shallow understanding of one, if not both, games.

Cosmic Pig should not be mentioned at all. It is an obscure, unauthorized homebrew played by no more than 50 people in the entire world. However, if we're going to insist that all obscure homebrew versions be mentioned, then where are Cosmic Poker, Cosmic Monopoly, and Cosmic Dune? These are played by MANY more people than Cosmic Pig.

I have not made any edits to this section, as I have seen what happens when users try to improve or clarify this entry -- i.e., the typical Wiki reversion wars perpetrated by some people with a need to play God. My time is more valuable than that ... however, I thought I'd at least mention how weak this section currently is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDukester (talk • contribs)

"this shows a very shallow understanding", "perpetrated by some people with a need to play God" - please don't make personal attacks. Percy Snoodle 09:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Please don't drastically over-edit entries for which you apparently have little understanding, then. Oh, and would saying somone had used "an appalingly-formatted edition history" (bad spelling, BTW) NOT be considered a "personal attack"?? Seems hypocritical to me ... but that would typical for the Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDukester (talk • contribs)

There is a difference between criticising the article and criticising the editor. If you geniunely think that Wikipedia is nothing more than a breeding ground for hypocrisy, I invite you to leave. Percy Snoodle 08:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History section should be reverted[edit]

The wholesale deletion of the valuable information contained in the "history" section of the early versions of this entry is just shameful. Perhaps it could have been formatted a little better, but to have someone who put NO effort into the original research and writing come through and just decide to delete it ALL ... well, that's just reprehensible. I've read the discussion page, and I'm not buying most of the reasons listed. How are Wiki readers better served by this wholesale deletion?

There is a difference between editing and an over-the-top hack job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDukester (talk • contribs)

This is your last warning before I involve the administrators. Don't make personal attacks!. If nothing else, ad hominem arguments are not convincing. Percy Snoodle 06:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for losing my temper a bit there - I will of course follow WP's WP:NPA policy of warning you on your talk page before proceeding to WP:PAIN. Percy Snoodle 09:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is trying to use fancy language.

I ask again, wondering if this time I'll get answers instead of threats:

1. Is saying someone used "appallingly bad formatting" NOT considered a personal attack? If not, is it just a typically Wiki-esque way to admonish newcomers or something? The author of that section spent HOURS working on it; I'm sure he felt great after reading that ...

2. Why was the history section deleted almost in its entirety? Why would you think all of that useful and HISTORICAL information (on editions that are YEARS out of print) was of no use to interested readers? Why not change the formatting, if it bothered you so much, but also retain the information?

And here's a new question:

3. What recourse do those of us who totally disagree with your "edits" actually have? (and, believe me, I could point you to at least two forums where you are being ripped apart). I mean, you'll just revert everything, anyway, right?

I'm being entirely serious when I ask: we're all just wasting our time, aren't we? You (Wiki bigshot) will win, while we (those of us who have actually PLAYED the game) will lose. It's carved in stone, right? Or, put another way: there is no possible future space-time continuum wherein you will possibly admit that you were wrong and went way too far with your "edits," is there? It's a serious question ... although I already know the answer.

Oh, BTW, feel free to "involve" whomever you desire. As if my respect for Wikipedia could fall any lower ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDukester (talk • contribs)

1. There is a difference between criticising the article and criticising the editor.
2. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. All that was deleted was the endless lists of what editions contained what powers.
3. Simple: Make good edits in line with Wikipedia policies. Your recent edits, for example, have been good ones.
By all means, do point out those forums. I have a question for you in return: Is a personal attack still a personal attack if it's phrased as a question?
I invite you once again to seek a forum for which you have respect. Percy Snoodle 08:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Okay, I'll criticize the article: it has a terrible history section.

2. I am heavily involved in this game (both online and "traditional" play) and have played for more than 20 years, and I can tell you without hesitation that the question I am asked most often is: what powers were in which editions (or expansions)? Yet this is the very information that is not in the current Wiki article, despite repeated attempts to place it there. That's just a baffling decision.

3. Sorry, but I don't believe you. I've made numerous small changes to the page, but I refuse to make a substantial contribution, seeing as how you'll just wipe it out.

Oh, and is it still being passive-aggressive to hide a passive-aggressive statement in the form of a passive-aggressive question?

(Addition: For the record, I'd like to be signing everything I write, but I haven't the slightest idea how to do it. I'm not finding the Wiki to be at all user-friendly ... everything seems designed for people who have been here for years. If I'm signed in, why wouldn't my ID just show up? I tried some help pages, but they are all about the "Wiki philosophy" and not at all helpful. Anyway, the above response was written by me, TheDukester, should anyone care).

To sign your contributions, type '~~~~' after them.
1. Do you have a problem with it beyond the absence of the power descriptions that you mention in your second point? If so, what?
2. I don't believe that the inclusion of the various powers in this article is appropriate - though it may be of interest to people already familiar with the game, it is likely to overwhelm a reader who is trying to learn about the game for the first time. An interested reader would no doubt refer to the List of Cosmic Encounter powers article; perhaps you could include the information on article, perhaps in a table at the top of the article? I think that would improve that article immensely.
3. Whether you believe me or not is your problem, not mine.
Please, please, please desist in your personal attacks. Calling me "passive-aggressive" doesn't strengthen your case. Percy Snoodle 09:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oh, believe me, it's not my problem; I'll just use that time for other projects. It's unfortunate, though, that the entry would be about three times better if a number of longtime CE players weren't now afraid that their hard work would just be reverted. Seriously, CE has a pretty tight online community; we all talk to each other.

2. Upon further review, splitting the aliens onto their own page is probably the best way to do it. However, neither page mentions a number of important elements: kickers, flares, moons, reinforcements ... I could go on and on. And, as the page(s) stand right now, there's no logical place to put them.

1. I do. It's just publisher/year, publisher/year, etc., etc. Dry as a bone. This is a game with a very interesting history -- for instance, being originally sold only through mail-order and not through game stores. I suppose the challenge would be to add these interesting items while still maintaining a NPOV.

Finally, I guess I just don't get how it is okay for you to type "I have a question for you in return: Is a personal attack still a personal attack if it's phrased as a question?" and how it is NOT okay for me to respond in kind. Are you honestly saying you weren't baiting me with that question? Did you not sense that my phrasing of the "passive-aggressive" response was a DIRECT imitation of your own phrasing? I'm not kidding or being sarcastic: I honestly don't get why the first is okay and the second isn't. Are Wiki newbies not allowed to respond to thinly-veiled insults?TheDukester 11:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was pointing out that you were still personally attacking me, though you'd "thinly veiled" it as a question. You responded by personally attacking me. That's the difference. Now, please stop.
1. That's right. A big problem was the original article was that it phrased everything in the best possible way. No-one will take issue with you adding that the game was originally sold only through mail-order.
2. OK, but do bear in mind: Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. A brief summary of gameplay is all that is needed; interested readers are encouraged to follow the external links for more detail.
3. If players are scared of editing because you've told them it will be reverted, that is indeed a shame. Please don't take it out on me, though - I didn't tell them that.
Percy Snoodle 11:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I wasn't even the first person in the CE community to bring it up. And the page's history speaks for itself.

Also for the record, I see that some of my earlier comments were OTT. For that, I apologize. However, as a professional editor, I'm used to defending my position and/or receiving criticism (which might or might not be valid) if I choose to make wholesale changes to another's work. I suppose I'll never understand how it's possible for someone at the Wiki to make drastic changes to an article, but then be immune from criticism. That seems awfully one-sided ... and such an editor would last for about four hours in my world. I suppose it's possible that my background makes it difficult for me to be much of an "open source" type of guy. TheDukester 12:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. I'm not quite sure how being described as a "passive-agressive" "with a need to play God" counts as being "immune from criticism", though. Percy Snoodle 12:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

percy snoodle?[edit]

have you ever actually player Cosmic Encounter?

I still have a complete original set with all 9 expansions. Ive been offer more than £500 for it, but declined, its possibly one of the most complex board games ever invented.. The game has so many possible outcomes depending of what powers, cards etc are in play, that there is no game strategy. A strategy used to win one game may be completely useless with a different set of powers and cards.

So i suggest we put that phrase back in, since its relevant and factual, and if an encyclopaedia isnt for presenting relevant and factual information then wtf is it for?

82.21.205.80 (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What phrase are you referring to? Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, i also have an original fully expanded 1977 set. Unless you have played it, you have no concept of it. This is no ordinary board game. We have games using three alien powers and 8 players that went on for 8 hours, winning was so difficult. I would do you some scans of the originals artwork, but its a waste of time, there are too many editmonkeys in wikipedia now who go round deleting stuff all the time, ive stopped even trying to add anything else. I did a beautiful article on Ruston & Hornsby a couple of years ago, complete with many original photos, it got utterly decimated, which was a personal insult to my deceased father who was Chief Development Engineer and worked for them for 40 years.
But back to the point, unless you have played original fully expanded Cosmic Encounter you should not be editing this article, since you most certainly dont know what you are talking about. 82.21.207.51 (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are apparently talking about the list of powers. The xtreme kewlness or market value of your games is not encyclopedic (unless they've been notably covered in reliable sources). You are right, adding copyright violations of the original's artwork would be a waste of time. But glad you got back to the point. Unless you understand that Wikipedia is not an instruction manual you should start there, so that your edits to this article can benefit the encyclopedia. Also, please focus on article content, not on other editors. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cosmic Encounter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cosmic Encounter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cosmic_Encounter&oldid=1201167368"