Talk:Battle of B-R5RB

Naming

Coalition you call "Russian" called itself "Helloween Coalition". According to your logic CFC should be called "Americans". Please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1046:0:BE30:5BFF:FEDB:5761 (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

"We" didn't name it anything. The cited sources almost exclusively call the CFC and Russian bloc together "CFC/RUS", and the russian bloc "Russian-heavy coalition", "Russian alliances", "Russian forces" or just "RUS". I've uncapitalised the C in coalition so as not to imply that it's a proper name. Binkyuk (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Notability

Does this really deserve its own page? While it was a big deal in the Eve Online universe it doesn't have any notable effects outside of the game. I can't see any prior art for in-game events having their own pages - the closest I could find was Corrupted Blood incident, but that is mostly notable because its a study case for real world epidemiology. IMO at best this should be the inaugural section of an in-game history section or page. Binkyuk (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This definitely is notable. Within the article itself, four highly reliable news sources are listed, plus a story from the Associated Press. Apart from those five sources, I found these additional ones: Complex, DailyMail, Eurogamer, Huffington Post, Joystiq, Digital Trends, Inqisitr, International Business Times, IGN, and The Boston Globe (though this last one is a professional editorial piece, so not exactly a news story). Note: I do not play this game, and up till a few days ago had never heard of it. I just saw someone post about the battle on Facebook, I g-searched it, saw the news coverage, and created the article.--¿3family6 _contribs 23:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The media coverage falls under "sensationalism" -- a single news cycle of people who haven't done their homework parroting bad facts. It's a nice article, but it was just a fight in a spaceship game.

And the WoW Corrupted Blood incident was just a promotional event in a fantasy MMO, and doesn't need to have a page all of its own. 69.119.41.219 (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Going off-topic, Corrupted Blood wasn't a promotional event, it was an accidental glitch. You're probably thinking of a similar later event to do with a developer-made zombie plague. Binkyuk (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It's "just" a fight in a spaceship game in the same sense as anything done by several thousand people over an 18 hour period can be written off casually. This is the largest, and longest, online 'battle' of any sort, and should be recorded. Just to be clear, we are talking about thousands of spaceships and more rendered objects than anything George Lucas ever did: this might actually be the single largest spaceship battle ever filmed. 77.96.105.227 (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I fail to see the WP:NOTABILITY of this article. I also agree that media coverage is anything beyond "interesting tibit of the week". CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. WP:EVENT is clearly not met - see WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:LASTING. None of the media attention appears to have survived 2014. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I originally voted for Keep because it was too early to determine whether WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:LASTING would be met. I believe that they haven't been, since a google of "b-r5rb" shows no articles beyond May 2014, 2 months after the event. Binkyuk (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

A quick g-hits search brought up the following, and this is excluding the multitude of references to the battle in various gaming articles: Ars Technica, Fans and Videogames: Histories, Fandom, Archives Virtual Dark Tourism: Ghost Roads, and a brief mention as a conceptual example in Immersive Learning Research Network: 4th International Conference, iLRN 2018, Missoula, MT, USA, June 24-29, 2018, Proceedings.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy of cost estimate

The battle did not cost $300,000. All the dollar values are speculative and theoretical, based on the fact you can sell game time (PLEX) to other players for in game currency. I've edited the article to reflect this, as it was entirely misleading and very inaccurate. Very few, if any at all of the ships lost cost anything "real world". The values were just thrown about by media for sensationalism. Xaerael (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this edit, telling it cost $300,000 is confusing people outside of the game to think real money was used to finance the battle, which is not true. Raddry (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a good addition to the article. The $300,000 number is one that the media took and ran with, not explaining its significance or how that number was arrived at. Xanatos290 (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned up the explanation about PLEX conversion rates and added a source for it. I apologize for the misleading aspect, I'd never even heard of the game until a few days ago, so I worked off the news reports.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The way I like to explain the cost is that the game costs $15/month to play, and about 20,000 player-months of time was put into building the ships that were destroyed. It *was* real money, but real money that had already been spent on game subscriptions. The question is whether the players felt they got their money's worth in entertainment. (I'd put this in the article, but I fear it's OR.) 71.41.210.146 (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there's a source that says something similar to that, except for the entertainment part.--¿3family6 _contribs 15:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Move to Battle of B-R5RB?

I'd like to move this page to Battle of B-R5RB, as bloodbath sounds too in-universe. Any objections? Skrelk (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree we should move it, but it is notable because of the amount of money lost (that is what all the WP:THIRDPARTY sources talk about), Possibly something along the lines of "Economic losses in video games"? That would provide more focuse on notability and less on in-universe details. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any major objection to moving the article to Battle of B-R5RB. I called it the "Bloodbath" because that's what a lot of sources called it.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree Both terms are used; WP whould use the less peacock one. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree too; does anyone want to do something about it? --Jtle515 (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Focus on what is actually notable (economic losses, number of humans involved) not in-universe details.

It seems to me this article need to be re-written to focus on those things the WP:RS report on (economic losses, number of humans involved) not on the trivialities of the game itself (parties involved, details of POS losses), those things are beter suited for and EVE specific wiki. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Which trivialities? I agree that the article could use some work, but I've also tried to provide some context of why the battle happened and the results afterward. Most or at least much of the actual battle is talked about in reliable sources. But, like I said, I certainly wouldn't mind others cleaning things up a bit.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I would say write from "$x was lost and y players involved, this is because of game mechanic z and event a", the current focus is (in my view) "because of event a and mechanic z a big battle happened, oh, by the way this caused these notable things to happen", I'm not saying don't write about mechanics and event in universe, just note that they are the causes of the notable things, not the other way around. CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the lede should have more emphasis on real world notable elements. The main article's layout of "because of X, Y happened, which resulted in Z" is the clearest way of explaining the event. Binkyuk (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

But maybe I should do it instead of talking about it... Done. Binkyuk (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.--¿3family6 _contribs 14:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

In-universe

Its not in-universe because the event isn't fictional. A virtual battle between players really happened. Probably the most straightforward way of thinking of it is in terms of sport. A description of a game may get rather jargon heavy but that is an issue of poor use of language rather than a problem with it being in-universe.©Geni (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, many elements of the fight that I suspect you consider "in-universe" are in fact real. For example the player organisations like the CFC and PL are groups of people that play computer games together and are therefore as "real" as my local chess club. The "battle" is real in the sense that any competitive confrontation between people can be referred to as a "battle" (ie "courtroom battle") even though it's not physical, and by the same logic the "Halloween War" is similarly real. There are some in-universe elements like "space station", "spaceships" and "B-R5RB star system" that are referred to as real objects when they aren't, but I think this is fine. The first few lines already establish that this is a virtual battle in the eve online universe; it's no worse than stating "Black's Queen attacks White's King", provided you've already established that you're talking about a game of chess. Qualifying these terms with "in-game" or "virtual" would just be a waste of words. Binkyuk (talk) 11:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

More Aftermath

<snip>

While it's not bad content, I'm wary of this article turning in to a neverending future history of EVE Online if we keep extending the Aftermath section for every new development. The secondary sources that provide notability (which TMC isn't one of, since it's a single issue news site. It's ok to cite from there, but coverage by TMC doesn't make something notable) only covered the battle itself. I think it might be wiser to draw a line under things a few days after the battle, or we're in danger of becoming an eve fansite. Binkyuk (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I've thought the same thing too, but I think that this content is actually very important - B-R5RB was a massive conflict, so many readers will want to know what impact it had on the overall war. This also works very well as a definitive concluding point, as there is no reason to continue the history after this point.--¿3family6 _contribs 18:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Eh, the problem is what's the actual ending point? Most would have said the halloween war ended after the CFC hellcamped N3 for a week and withdrew with the Mission Accomplished banner flying, but then more happened, and now the halloween war has ended for a second time. Will there be a third? What about other future events that are arguably due to B-R? I guess we can say we'll cross that bridge when we come to it, but I'd rather put a line in the sand way earlier than that and avoid any future hand wringing. I maintain that the notable content here are the economic losses and human input - the impact on eve geopolitics is all bonus material. At most you could argue that it's notable because it helps the reader understand why so many players were prepared to commit the resources they did to it. Binkyuk (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

A valid point. Maybe there's a way to simplify things to merely state that the battle had an indeterminate effect on the war.--¿3family6 _contribs 02:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Not the biggest battle of all time

Someone needs to check the numbers on this, but I believe the battle on Serenity that happened shortly after this fight was bigger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Throsturth (talk • contribs) 23:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Serenity had a 1000 fewer players, but lost a lot more supercapitals. It would be great if you could find some news coverage of this.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately Serenity is the Chinese server so it probably didn't get mainstream press coverage, at least not in english media. TMC has an article here. Highest mention is 2500 in local, while B-R had 2670, so B-R was slightly larger in terms of player participation, even though 49-U beat it in terms of in-game assets destroyed. I don't think we're lying, since we describe it as the "largest player-vs-player battle ever", which kind of implies the metric we're using is number of players.

It's also worth noting that because they're on different servers the going rate of PLEX to ISK may be different, so the loss of more ISK value in ships doesn't *necessarily* imply higher RL economic losses, which was the headline of B-R. Would need a source to analyse it. Binkyuk (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me for adding this so late, but I believe the biggest battle was in an EVE system referred to as 6VDT. I would provide sources, but presently I'm not in an appropriate setting to take the time to provide such.167.24.104.150 (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I looked this up and 6VDT-H was the biggest prior to this one. That one had a little over five thousand players. Both that and Asakai could also use articles, which I may create eventually.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

[1] is a good official source. 6VDT was indeed bigger (how I didn't know this I'm not sure - I was actually there). That does sort of shoot down the claim of "biggest player vs player battle ever". Binkyuk (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

6VDT-H certainly was about twice as large as B-R5RB in terms of players within a system at one time, but unless it had over 7,500 players involved over-all, B-R5RB is still bigger. If a larger one is found, or later on takes place, the claim can be modified i.e. "claimed to be the biggest" and "was, at that point, the biggest," respectively.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bloodbath of B-R5RB/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 21:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I remember reading about this on the news back in the day. Never played Eve, but I love space MMOs and always wanted to play it! I'll have this finished soon. JAGUAR  21:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

≠===Initial comments===

• "and was possibly the largest player versus player battle ever" - don't know if this is just me, but I thought that "ever" sounds a bit informal or unenecyclopedic to use. How about something like in history?
• "Eve Online is a space game in which players engage" - needs mentioning that it is an MMORPG too; Eve Online is a MMORPG space game in which players engage
• "and so deployed their entire Capital Fleet to the system" - should capital fleet be capitalised here? I could be wrong, so feel free to ignore this
• "and the game's time dilation software kicked in" - informal, try initiated
• "as the biggest and most expensive in EVE Online's history" - needs italicisation
• "Dr. Eyjólfur Guðmundsson, an economist hired by CCP Games to oversee EVE Online's economy" - again, this needs to be italicised
• "Pandemic Legion withdrew from the Southeast theater and struck a deal with the CFC" - bit informal, how about just made a deal
• "Once the game went into downtime, developer CCP Games" - de-link CCP Games, as it already has been linked before
• Ref 7 and ref 15 are both dead. Need archiving
• No dab links

I'll leave this on hold until all of the above have been addressed. It was an interesting read! I wish I could get Eve Online. JAGUAR  17:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I addressed all of these issues. Thanks!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! This looks good to go now. JAGUAR  17:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bloodbath of B-R5RB. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20140203052337/http://themittani.com/news/b-r5rb-biggest-battle-all-eve to http://themittani.com/news/b-r5rb-biggest-battle-all-eve
• Added archive https://archive.is/20140203052428/http://themittani.com/news/sov-drops-b-r5-immensea-staging-system to http://themittani.com/news/sov-drops-b-r5-immensea-staging-system
• Added archive https://archive.is/20140208153050/http://eve-dingo.com/coalition.php to http://eve-dingo.com/coalition.php
• Added archive https://archive.is/20140204033916/http://themittani.com/news/pandemic-legion-withdraw-south to http://themittani.com/news/pandemic-legion-withdraw-south
• Added archive https://archive.is/20140208052859/http://themittani.com/news/nullsec-update-week-january-27th to http://themittani.com/news/nullsec-update-week-january-27th
• Added archive https://archive.is/20140503104718/http://themittani.com/news/catch-abandoned-story to http://themittani.com/news/catch-abandoned-story

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

More information can be added.

This article could add more information seen in the YouTube video "Bloodbath of B-R5RB from eyes of aggressor." Such as Pandemic legion focused on destroying super-capitals while ClusterFuck combined multiple Titans (to overcome long reloads due to time dilation) to kill a Pandemic legion titan. It can additionally add information of why the main battle-field looks like it does (the ships being in a big messy sphere of ships) as that is a frequent question that pops up--the answer would be that since ClusterFuck wrecking ball causes a defensive sphere; Pandemic legion forced ships in to it to neutralize it thus leaving a spherical battle-field. I had considered adding but this site's too anal 'bout needing sources and for some reason a forum isn't as valued as a commercial/media/report article. --94.234.36.106 (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Video of the battle could be used as a source. If it's a discussion of game mechanics, a source from the publisher can be used as a primary source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

> Such as Pandemic legion focused on destroying super-capitals while ClusterFuck combined multiple Titans (to overcome long reloads due to time dilation) to kill a Pandemic legion titan.

This isn't exactly how the battle went. Pandemic Legion/N3 Coalition initially focused on using Titan doomsday weapons to take out CFC/Russian dreadnoughts (regular capital ships) while CFC/Russian forces immediately started going for Pandemic Legion/N3 Coalition Titans.

This is due to the CFC/Russians' experience in the previous major battle in this conflict, the Battle of HED-GP, where the massive server load caused many dreadnought pilots to either find only black screens upon entering the system, or to experience their capital ship guns not actually registering hits, the commands getting lost in the mess of many thousands getting sent to the server.

This made senior leadership in the CFC, including Lazarus Telraven, fleet commander of all allied forces in the subsequent Battle of B-R5RB, realize that dreadnoughts (the go-to heavy damage output cheapish capital ship class) were all but useless in a major time-dilated supercapital/capital engagement. See his lecture at Fanfest 2014. On the other hand, Titan doomsday weapons can only fire once every ten minutes, and would definitely go through to the server even in a time-dilated environment. Therefore, Titans were both the most important tools in the battle, and also the most important targets.

Pandemic Legion/N3 Coalition did not catch onto this as quickly. In the very beginning of the battle, CFC/Russian forces focused on enemy Titans, while Pandemic Legion/N3 Coalition went for enemy dreadnoughts. They eventually caught on, but the snowball had already started rolling, resulting in the massive disparity in Titans lost - 59 Pandemic Legion/N3 Coalition Titans dead, 16 CFC/Russian Titans.

Also, Titans are a subset of supercapitals. Maabonnet (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Theleekycauldron (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Battle of B-R5RB in EVE Online was possibly the largest player-versus-player battle in virtual history? Source: https://www.wired.com/2014/02/eve-online-battle-of-b-r/
  • Comment: I just found this out like a week ago and its hillarious

Created by Das Kittles (talk). Self-nominated at 15:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC).

• Das Kittles, the Battle of B-R5RB is not eligible for DYK because it has already appeared in the DYK section before, on 21 February 2014. See the previous nomination. The DYK eligibility criteria are listed at WP:DYKCRIT. Sorry about that! DanCherek (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Battle of B-R5RB

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Withdrawn by nominator due to improvements made afterward. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the article needs to be reassessed on Good Article status. While the battle is probably notable, the article fails the Good Article criteria of being understandable to a wide audience and balanced in coverage. It cites a single primary source no less than 22 times and goes heavily into the minutia of the battle that is largely relevant to fans. It only has a couple of sentences about the battle's real-world relevance such as making money for CCP Games. It requires major cleanup to stress why the battle does not fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE and had long-term effects. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

"goes heavily into the minutia of the battle that is largely relevant to fans." As in, details what transpired in the battle? It's an article about a battle, that's literally going to be part of that. Granted, there's probably been some article creep over the years. I'll take a look through it.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Just as an example from one of the initial paragraphs, "An enemy scout discovered Nulli Secunda quietly attempting to regain control with their Territorial Claim Units (TCU). At around 14:00 UTC, with an hour remaining before Nulli Secunda could regain control, the CFC and Russian coalition sent a capital fleet to the station. RAZOR Alliance took the station, and the Russians destroyed the N3/PL Territorial Claim Unit and set up its own TCU in order to establish control". The article doesn't previously explain what Nulli Secunda is besides "a part of the N3/Pandemic Legion coalition", what a Territorial Claim Unit actually is, or what RAZOR Alliance is. It's largely fanspeak that is impenetrable and uninteresting to the layperson. It should be written in the sense of "why would someone who has never played a video game find this particular video game battle interesting", whereas right now it's written in a sense of fans documenting things for other fans. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, on it!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Zxcvbnm, I've made some changes. What are your thoughts so far?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

It has definitely been improved. Another thing I am concerned about is the article's use of Infobox Military Conflict to summarize the ingame battle. It is rather blatantly WP:INUNIVERSE. I suggest replacing with Template:Infobox event and moving any info that would not fit the template into the article. If that's also addressed, I will likely be partial to withdrawing the review on account of the issues being fixed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Nine years ago, I proposed the creation of an infobox for fictional and virtual conflicts, and it went nowhere. The military conflict editors said then that there wasn't a consensus that using the military conflict infobox was a problem. Years prior to that an editor had issues with the infobox being used for fictional conflicts in an alternate history book series, but consensus then, too, was that it wasn't actually a problem (I tried to find that discussion, it's buried now). So I'm not against using a different infobox if it's a fictional/virtual conflict, but whenever the issue has been brought up the consensus is that the miltary conflict infobox is fine.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I found that other discussion: Module_talk:Infobox_military_conflict/Archive_3#Infobox_policy_and_fictional_conflicts.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Well frankly, that's a fairly small WP:LOCALCONSENSUS whereas the general consensus is that in-universe language should be avoided. The military conflict infobox refers to losses as "casualties", which goes directly against the guidance not to refer to fictional characters as "deceased". I agree that an infobox for fictional battles is not necessary, as there are only a few articles on them, but I also don't believe a real-life military infobox should be substituted. Perhaps a "fictional event" box may be merited, but this also happened to be a real-life event, so use of the actual event box is perfectly warranted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, anything else?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

No, the infobox definitely feels improved now. I will withdraw the GAR. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.