Talk:Eve Online/Archive 8

message: As far as I can tell, this article contains absolutely no criticisms of the game at all.  No mention is made of the fact that it's very difficult for new players to get established, that CCP actually condones types of grief-play that would get people banned in most other games, or any number of other issues the game obviously has.  It appears to have been written to include only positive aspects by a very small, very active, very vocal group of Eve supporters that seems to appear everywhere.  -Graptor 66.161.206.46 22:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is because criticisms are by definition not a neutral point of view and do not belong in a wikipedia article. There is plenty of criticism of EVE available on various game sites and blogs and this article even links to some of them. --Sindri 10:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But by that token surely positive comments are also by definition non-neutral.  The criticism levelled here is that the article is entirely positive.  Having played Eve in the beta and for about a year afterwards, and having made a good chunk of change selling currency on ebay, before leaving the game out of disgust from the chronic mis-management of the economy and combat, I have a wide range of criticisms to make. Toby Douglass 12:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh...I would think otherwise.  There are criticism sections all over articles, even FA-quality ones.  If there is notable and important criticism of something, it should be in the article.  Though generally I have found that criticism sections focus on very specific things, often critical media coverage. —Dark•Shikari[T] 11:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I am aware there is very little content available that is of sufficent quality to warrant using as references in Wikipeidia, you look through the gaming magazines (i.e. publications with editorial oversight as per WP:RS) and they are all very positive about EVE, sure there is also a large number of forum posts and blogs saying how bad EVE is but for the most part they don't meet the requirements of WP:RS. If somone can provide links to good quality and reliable sources, then please either create a subsection of the article or post the sources in here and another editor will pickup. As to the regular contributors to this artilce, asside from Dark Shikari, I have never heard of the other editors. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 12:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, adding criticisms of the game, would be a bad idea - it might put people off the game, who have come here to find out information. If you want to go set up a wiki of your own to put EVE criticisms on, be my guest - but at far as putting it on this particular article - no. - TheChrisD, Halo2Leagues.com Head Organiser 17:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Wikipedians we have a responsibility to present a Neutral Point of View it is not our responsibility to sanitise the contents of the article to put EVE or CCP in a better light, I would love the article to be one huge advert for EVE, however that is not what Wikipedia is here for. If there is material out there that formally criticises EVE then I will write an section about criticisms, however AFAIK there is nothing significant out there, the media is either ignoring EVE because it dosn't meet their requirements for readership (160K Subs is small in the industry) or they are full of praise. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Presenting a neutral viewpoint means refraining from portraying the subject in any light other than complete factual accuracy. it is not the purpose of a wiki article to judge or review something - merely to provide facts. As such, both criticism and praise for the game have no place in the article - AngryAngryMan 04:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Criticism is always POV, and it is not the role of Wikipedia to Criticize EVE. But factually reporting on criticism can be NPOV, just look at any article about a political figure. Policies on no original research and citing sources apply of course, so no personal rants. I went ahead and created a criticism section, using a Slashdot interview as a source. --Apoc2400 10:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: New to wiki here, I am the dummy who posted about the events of February 16th 2007, without a citation. I have been playing MMORPGs since UO and Everquest 1 beta and I can honestly not think of any game that had at any point over 1000 individuals involved in a single conflict on a singe node (planetside, perhaps?) making the event semi-historic.  This forum thread will confirm what happened, although I am not 100% familiar with proper citation, my apologies.  http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=477023 69.132.185.8 04:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I played Planetside from a few months before the Liberator patch until a few weeks after BFRs were released..  the biggest battle I can recall ever being in was about 400 players strong, although to be fair that was a LOT of people in that game (and a lot of action and things blowing up).  Eve is scaled a bit bigger..  and doesn't really handle the lag well in my experience.. but that probably has just as much to do with the player's own hardware and connection as it does CCP's servers. 139.139.67.70 15:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced? 

message: This section is quite clearly highly biased. Should it be removed, or simply edited? despite the author's attack on CCP, EVE does suffer from the presence of macro miners, and also has documented server lag issues, especially in certain focal trade systems, such as Jita. If these issues can be adequately presented without actively accusing CCP of negligence, then this section could be valid, though I would also suggest re-naming it to something a little more neutral, like "Known Issues" - AngryAngryMan 04:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New to wiki here, I am the dummy who posted about the events of February 16th 2007, without a citation. I have been playing MMORPGs since UO and Everquest 1 beta and I can honestly not think of any game that had at any point over 1000 individuals involved in a single conflict on a singe node (planetside, perhaps?) making the event semi-historic.  This forum thread will confirm what happened, although I am not 100% familiar with proper citation, my apologies.  http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=477023 69.132.185.8 04:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I played Planetside from a few months before the Liberator patch until a few weeks after BFRs were released..  the biggest battle I can recall ever being in was about 400 players strong, although to be fair that was a LOT of people in that game (and a lot of action and things blowing up).  Eve is scaled a bit bigger..  and doesn't really handle the lag well in my experience.. but that probably has just as much to do with the player's own hardware and connection as it does CCP's servers. 139.139.67.70 15:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: weaknesses and downfalls

message: I'm not trying to get it put back on the page - but can I just ask, how are WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #2 and #13 reasons for removing it? EVE Wiki IS related to EVE Online and most likely has more accurate material on there than it does here.
However, I do understand WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #12 as a reason for removing it.
- TheChrisD, Halo2Leagues.com Head Organiser 13:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  That EVEWiki link 

message: I'm considering trying this game out, and came to this page for some quick information on it. However, I see little information here from a real-world perspective. Aside from the introduction, "Cost", "Graphics Engine and Windows Vista" and "Linux Support" sections, there is no meaningful information for someone who hasn't played the game. Indeed, the long and detailed information on the in-game economy, racial factions and so on are better suited to a gameplay and strategy site. And that's why I've added the in-universe tag. --Boradis 01:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true, but still we need change some sections to better represent this as a encyclopedia article. Antonio Carlos Porto 02:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Good examples of articles on video games are any of those listed here: Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Sport_and_games, or at least they were good examples at one time. --Boradis 18:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a casual Wiki-browser and I just reviewed the StarCraft article since it was listed as a featured article. Attempting to compare EVE to StarCraft is very difficult at best as they really are two completely different games. StarCraft has more "real-world" information because it lacks a persistent universe and individual players can customize the game, which is done while not playing it, in addition to other differences. Tangible things outside of the game like this simply don't exist in EVE (this would likely be considered hacking the client). I also noticed that there was not a single MMO in the "featured article" listing. Having just started to play Eve, I find this a pretty solid article that tries to explain EVE over-all. I would not be able to think of any addition "real-world" information you can add to this article. In addition, I would argue that there are additional "real-world" information throughout the article than the sections you've described. So, I am somewhat baffled at the need for the in-universe tag. --67.151.118.186 15:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are no MMOs that have had featured articles, that should tell you something right there -- that the other MMO pages aren't good things to emulate. And heck, it also means the EVE page has the chance to be the first featured MMO! And while this article might be useful to a new player, Wikipedia is not for gameplay guides. It's for giving real-world information about a real-world product, and briefly describing how that product is unique. I admit I'm struggling to keep this in mind on the video game pages I contribute to, but it's still the correct way to write about it. --Boradis 19:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-universe 

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

message: Could someone shorten this down to the bare minimum? Seems to be a large amount of text about a small feature and the article is still a bit bloated imo --89.100.1.161 16:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I gave it a go, how's it look? --Ashenai 08:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better, thanks. --89.100.1.161 17:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jump Clones