Jump to content

Talk:Eve Online: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Demio (talk | contribs)
SoxBot VIII (talk | contribs)
Removing links to fair-use image Image:Trinity logo cutout.png.
Line 125: Line 125:
:But the Trinity one is just so much cooler!...Ah, well. Have to keep up with the times, I guess. (Or we could just use the <i>original</i> logo and not have to worry about it. But that would be too easy.) [[User:DerekMBarnes|DerekMBarnes]] ([[User talk:DerekMBarnes|talk]]) 06:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
:But the Trinity one is just so much cooler!...Ah, well. Have to keep up with the times, I guess. (Or we could just use the <i>original</i> logo and not have to worry about it. But that would be too easy.) [[User:DerekMBarnes|DerekMBarnes]] ([[User talk:DerekMBarnes|talk]]) 06:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


:: I tend to agree with Derek's suggestion. For comparison, the former logo and the current Trinity logo: <br /><br /> [[Image:EVEOnlineLogo.png|left|226px|Logo until changed by Cody on April 19, 2008]] <br /> [[Image:Trinity_logo_cutout.png|left|226px|Trinity logo to be changed with new expansions]] <br clear="all" /> I don't have anything against the former logo. What do you guys say? Instead of changing the logo for new expansions we revert back to the former logo we had until Cody's change on April 19, 2008? I'm all for it. <br /> -- [[User:Aexus|Aexus]] ([[User talk:Aexus|talk]]) 17:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
:: I tend to agree with Derek's suggestion. For comparison, the former logo and the current Trinity logo: <br /><br /> [[Image:EVEOnlineLogo.png|left|226px|Logo until changed by Cody on April 19, 2008]] <br /> [[:Image:Trinity_logo_cutout.png|left|226px|Trinity logo to be changed with new expansions]] <br clear="all" /> I don't have anything against the former logo. What do you guys say? Instead of changing the logo for new expansions we revert back to the former logo we had until Cody's change on April 19, 2008? I'm all for it. <br /> -- [[User:Aexus|Aexus]] ([[User talk:Aexus|talk]]) 17:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


== Proper capitalization of the word "EVE" ==
== Proper capitalization of the word "EVE" ==

Revision as of 21:06, 14 June 2008

Former good article nomineeEve Online was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 7, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 28, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
January 23, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Maintained

Eve Online Accouunting is flawed

While playing Eve online I discovered a wide spread exploit or error depending on how you look at it. While you ylace instant orders in eve online you have nothing to fear. But if you place a long term order in the eve universe you will be charged dobble for the transactions. Play at your own risk. From what I can tell it is theft in the worst way. Figures dont lye but lyers can figure. Rimonesent of fredie macs anouncement of their new accounting practices. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Eric] comment added by 71.210.33.177 (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are referring to the fact that you get a charge when you place an order and another charge when the order is filled (or partially filled). This is in fact not an exploit or an error if you create an order by right clicking an item and choosing "sell this item" then click "advanced >>>": you will see the total at the bottom is the final amount you will get, the two numbers above are the sales tax and the brokers fee. The brokers fee is taken immediately when you place the order and is not refundable, the sales tax is taken when the item is sold. If you are a new player and are selling in a station who's owner does not hold you in good standing. Both values will be 1% so I can understand how it could appear you are being charged twice. If you are still unsure please feel free to submit a petition using the this link. -- RichardSlater (About) / (Talk) 21:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Python is not mentioned

I was just thinking in the "See also" section it has a wiki link to "Stackless Python" but it's not mentioned anywhere in the article that EVE is coded in stackless python as can be seen by [1]. Without a mention the "Stackless Python" link in the see also section seems out of place. Sorry if this isn't to some exact standard cause it's my first time using the talk thingy. Virgil 577 (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Virgil. Talking on Talk pages is straightforward - just the way you did it. As for Stackless Python, be bold! Feel free to add it to the article in any way, shape or form you see fit. Of course, you can also suggest text for a Stackless Python section here on the Talk page instead of directly editing the article. I'd say that the Development section looks appropriate for this change; maybe Python would fit in nicely between the Compatibility and Third-party applications and the Eve API Project paragraphs. You already have one important aspect of the potential new section: a valid source. I'd say go or it and write two or three sentences for starters. The worst that can happen is that editors disagree with your change, point it out and discuss how to improve it.
-- Aexus (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Publisher Flags

Personally I would remove the flags from the article as they are misleading and don't actually provide any useful information. f.ex. SSI is an "world wide" corporation however I am sure they do not practically publish world wide, for example they wouldn't have been able to publish in China or many other communist states, in fact the initial release was North America and the UK, swiftly followed by the rest of the EU. CCP themselves are allowed to publish EVE in China now, but only by special arrangement with the state so they are not truly worldwide as other communist states would most likely not allow them to publish. -- RichardSlater (About) / (Talk) 18:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the flags should be removed. I've done that. Here's what I think. I've had a look at ten more or less randomly picked MMO articles from the Comparison of MMORPGs article, namely Anarchy Online, Dark Age of Camelot, Entropia Universe, Guild Wars, MapleStory, Ragnarok Online, Second Life, Silkroad Online, Tabula Rasa and World of Warcraft. Two of these ten articles use flags to accompany the developer's and/or publisher's name: Silkroad Online and MapleStory.
While the flags guideline of the Manual of Style doesn't explicitly discourage flags in infoboxes it does say, "If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen." It has become controversial. So while it's a matter of taste I like the article better without flags. I've removed them. Please feel free to contradict me and suggest another solution.
-- Aexus (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mobius Games

Not sure that Mobius Games actually publish EVE Online, they seem to provide an affiliate link, a download link and a link to buy game time. Not sure how that differs in mechanic to other sites such as Shattered Crystal or BattleClinic, both sites have had links added to the article and removed as spam or advertising. -- RichardSlater (About) / (Talk) 18:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. It doesn't look like players actually play on another server than Tranquility when they go through this website. I could imagine they get redirected to a different server depending on their IP addresses but since the Mobius Game website doesn't seem to provide information of that sort it looks fishy. It may very well be spam. I tend to just remove the link and provoke a discussion with Aeon17x.
-- Aexus (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted Mobius Games from the list of publishers and I've reverted the External links section to its former state without a link to the so-called EVE Philippines home page. Like Richard I can't see Mobius Games offering more than other affiliate sites. -- Aexus (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an advertisement. Digital Media Exchange, Inc., the parent company of Mobius Games, did publish EVE Online for the Southeast Asian countries. Here's a link to their press release.I'm bringing back the link, with a correction that it is not the Philippine homepage as previously posted, but rather the Southeast Asian homepage. Scratch that, I'm just placing the publisher info. It's the same server after all, so the EVE international homepage would suffice for the external links. --Aeon17x (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can stay this way. I was under the impression that CCP owned the worldwide publishing rights for EVE Online but apparently with the release of Revelations II in June 2007 they've decided to delegate publishing business in Asia to Digital Media Exchange/Mobius Games. Whatever that means. After all, players play on Tranquility no matter what. One tangible result of Mobius Games' work may be that they do the advertising work for players in Asia so that CCP doesn't have to concentrate its efforts on that market. Ah well, I dunno. I won't change the article for now but I'm not yet sure what to make of this either.
-- Aexus (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodlines

I see no mention whatsoever in this article of the bloodlines within each faction. I consider this an important part of gameplay in EVE, not only because of the differing attribute statistics of each, but also because each has their own culture and customs within their collective societies. I feel there should be at least some metion of the bloodlines, if by nothing more than name. (Of course, I wouldn't mind having full articles on every faction and its bloodlines either, although I realize there is little more than a framework backstory provided for each.) Does anyone else have thoughts on the matter? DerekMBarnes (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with you, especially once the new four came in last year, as the bloodlines make a considerable difference in what paths you choose. I'd also like to see something about the recent Council for Stellar Management stuff. --AlisonW (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, yeah. A few lines about the bloodlines can further improve the article. Though full articles about the factions, fully covering the bloodlines is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. That's more something for example for eve-wiki.net. -- Aexus (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreed on the point of "beyond the scope." Societies of other fictional universes are covered in Wikipedia rather extensively, e.g. the various races of "Star Trek," even though a decidated wiki like Memory Alpha is equally suited to the task. But as I've said, EVE itself provides very little to build a substantial article from, so I would agree that full articles for each faction are not a feasible option at this time. DerekMBarnes (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hold off a bit and see how much new background info we get with the new expansion. I don't think we will get enough to earn the factions their own pages, but I'll probablly re-write and expand (slightly) the races section to include bloodlines and factions. We will have to find a spot to add in factional warfare as well. Mdlutz (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The novel should provide even more information; looking forward to reading that. DerekMBarnes (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How long would it take?

Using the EVEMon 3rd party tool, I did some calculations and figured out how long it would take to master every single in-game skill to the fifth level, starting from a freshly-made character.

A very rough estimate of 28 years, give or take. Unrealistic? I think so. PrinceForte (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a fair estimate depending on the circumstances. Actually until just now I was under the impression that it was a matter of about five years to train all currently available skills to level 5. However, I just searched the forums and found for example a thread by Arlic0 calculating the total training time to be 26 years. The two-year difference between his and your calculation is probably due to different starting attributes. As for five years for all skills, I stand corrected. In Arlic0's thread nobody corrected the result. However, Saint Lazarus pointed out that 20-something years would mean "maxing out 4 races to which would be pretty pointless." Other than that EVEMon seems to do it right.
-- Aexus (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC it would have taken about 5 years with the original skill set the game was released with. Throw in all the Lvl 5-14 skills associated with invention and carriers and titans and I could believe 26 years. Eve-mon does include skills that aren't trainable in the game, such as jove ships, I assume those were excluded in the estimate. Mdlutz (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not forget that they are adding new skills every now and often. But in the end, I think that's a good system - you can never be perfect... but after few years, you will max out some skill trees.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do players receive 100% of a GTC's game time on account activation?

Note by Aexus: Acidictadpole posted the following as an item of the to-do list. Since the to-do list is meant to list doable tasks and this isn't an actual doable task I've decided to move it here so that we can discuss it properly. Here goes Acidictadpole's text. -- Aexus (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may be incorrect about this, but in the topic about payment/cost methods, it mentions that you receive 100% of the gametime on a GTC if you use it to activate a trial account. I am 95% sure that this is incorrect, and that the first GTC you use actually has some time removed roughly equal to the $5 activation fee. Acidictadpole (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)(Can contact in EVE)[reply]

As far as I remember I got the full game time last time I activated an account with a GTC, but I'm not entirely certain.
And another thing that might be worth throwing in here; Game time does 'stack' when you add it, as opposed to overlapping the time one already has on the account Evil oatmeal (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure it says somewhere on the website that it will deduct 30 days or so from your first GTC to pay for activating the account, yet this never happened for me. As far as I can tell I've never paid the activation fee. cncplyr (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I first subscribed (2005), there was a section in the player's guide stating that a number of days would be removed when activating with a GTC. However people activating with a GTC reported that the days were never removed and the article has since been removed from the player's guide.
Credit card activations are still charged the extra $5 though. *Shrug* Oni no Akuma (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Stellar Management

The section on CSM needs to be updated - it has started to operate in the past weeks. PS. In a recent dev blog related to CSM there were some interesting stats including a gender distribution of the players.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logo cutout

The logo used for the infobox is the one for Trinity, perhaps it should be updated to the Empyrean Age one? Arachon (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the Trinity one is just so much cooler!...Ah, well. Have to keep up with the times, I guess. (Or we could just use the original logo and not have to worry about it. But that would be too easy.) DerekMBarnes (talk) 06:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Derek's suggestion. For comparison, the former logo and the current Trinity logo:

Logo until changed by Cody on April 19, 2008
Logo until changed by Cody on April 19, 2008

left|226px|Trinity logo to be changed with new expansions
I don't have anything against the former logo. What do you guys say? Instead of changing the logo for new expansions we revert back to the former logo we had until Cody's change on April 19, 2008? I'm all for it.
-- Aexus (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proper capitalization of the word "EVE"

The proper capitalization of the word "EVE" in "EVE Online" is "EVE", all capitals.

This was stated by one of the devs and it's final. Period. [2]

Demio (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Demio, you're right. The correct spelling of EVE Online is with an all-capitals "EVE". However, Wikipedia does not adhere to the spelling chosen by CCP. Wikipedians have set up the Wikipedia:Manual of Style that articles are to follow. Part of the Manual of Style is the trademarks guideline. The trademarks guideline says in a nutshell: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." More specifically it writes, "avoid: REALTOR®, TIME, KISS, instead, use: Realtor, Time, Kiss."
Next time you intend to change the capitalization please make sure to check at least the latest archives of each Talk page. For example, the latest archive of the Eve Online Talk page, archive 15, has this very discussion about Eve Online's capitalization.
Up until November 8, 2007 the Eve-related articles were correctly spelled with a standard-English "Eve". Correctly as in that's how Wikipedia does it no matter what the copyright owners prefer. On November 8 I thought the same thing you did; that the game was spelled with an all-capitals "EVE" so I changed it without knowing I was wrong. It was only in April 2008 that I realized there was a guideline within the Manual of Style that specifically dealt with what I had done to the article. That's when I fixed my mistake and renamed all Eve-related articles to the correct version of "Eve".
I've started reverting your changes. The main article Eve Online is already back to normal. The Spaceships and Expansions articles are to follow. Changes that 62.49.110.249, 24.172.93.118, Richard Slater, RussBot and AlisonW had made to the incorrectly spelled article will be edited in here once I'm done reverting your changes. I'll post an update here when everything's back to normal.
On a side note: mext time you want to change capitalization please make sure you get everthing that has to be renamed. First of, use the Move function at the top of each article. Furthermore, rename not only the articles themselves but also the accompanying articles like Talk or To-do pages. Also make sure to change the spelling within each article.
-- Aexus (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your changes, Demio. The Spaceships, Expansions and Eve Online articles now have their Wikipedia-style spelling back. Also, I went through the changes made to the incorrectly spelled EVE Online article in the few hours since your change. The only real change was by AlisonW. I've included that. See the developer misconduct section. As to the changes by 62.49.110.249, 24.172.93.118, Richard Slater and RussBot - 62.49.110.249 had changed the spelling of Eve to EvE, 24.172.93.118 had added a spam link reverted by Richard Slater. And lastly, RussBot had fixed the spelling of the Eve Online category after Demio's manual change. That's it.
Everything's back to normal and the edits that have occurred in the meantime are now part of the article.
-- Aexus (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're assuming it's a word and not an acronym. The back story does not explain which it is [3], but if the builders were using Wikipedia MoS when inscribing their gate then perhaps we should assume that it is an acronym and therefore should be capitalised here... :p Wiki-Ed (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for undoing your undo so hastily. I thought you were just another vandal. I've undone my undo. Demio (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]