Talk:Eve Online/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Lag and Critisism of Dragon

The lag caused by faulty coding in dragon is becomeing a major issue for those within the community, causeing quite a few people to cancel their accounts. As much as I don't want to besmirch the name of EVE, this is probably worth mentioning. Piuro 08:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Macro plauge

i generaly think theres a macro plauge going on in eve, theres atleast 1 in every 0.5-1.0 system. the economy is feeling this aswell, minerals went down to 50% in a few months. CCPs lack of interest to correct the problem isnt that pleasing either. i think this a serius problem and should be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.13.254 (talk • contribs) 08:10, October 21, 2006 85.226.13.254

Mineral prices are going up, not down... Valtam 18:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

i have to admit, i havnt played eve in 1 month, but how can the mineral prices go up when the market it flooded with minerals ?!

As a mineral buyer, I ask myself the same question! I wish mineral prices would go down! Valtam 06:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As a reference, here are some original mineral prices, when CCP started the game:
Tritanium - 1 isk
Pyerite - 4 isk
Mexallon - 16 isk
Isogen - 64 isk
Nocxium - 256 isk
Zydrine - 1024 isk
Megacite - 4096 isk
Valtam 20:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Skills

I've reworded some of the skill section slightly. The article references ranks annd levels and gives the example of a "low-level skill like trading" and a "high-level skill like capital ships" - this is confusing. The example is illustrating the difference between training a rank 1 skill to level and a rank 10(ish? - not at home to check) skill to level 5. I've tried to make that a bit clearer.

Death

Clarity is extremely important in this section. I don't think that the word "painful" needs to be used when the opening paragraph already states that death is dealt with severely. It's probably NPOV. The rest of the changes being pushed make the section read more awkwardly. In particular, why do you want to open a sentence with "Although"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.16.114 (talk • contribs) 13:15, October 26, 2006 67.100.16.114

Everything has to be clear, clarity is no more important here than anywhere else. The version you are "restoring" is anything but clear.

The sentence regarding ship insurance requires "although" (at the start) or "but" (in the middle) to be gramatically correct. The first clause is illustrating a difference to the second. That said, the whole sentence structure is poor - a legacy of the previous version.

Not all characters carry implants. It is wrong to insinuate that they do or that they are installed on a character rather than a particular clone body.

The paragraph on clones was imprecise and poorly written and had a number of factual errors:

1. There is no such thing as "clone insurance". A clone is an asset which the player purchases. It stays at a medical facility until needed.

2. If the clone is capable of storing all your skillpoints then it will, there is no "usually" about it. If you lose points there is no guarantee that it will affect just the "highest level" or knock off only "a month's worth of time spent training". It is entirely dependent on circumstances.

3. "Painful" and "severe" are both subjective. The inclusion of the adjective is to place additional emphasis on the relative cost of replacing a high level clone. The cost of a clone may increase at a predicatable rate, but the amount of money a player can make does not.

I'll amend poorly constructed sentences - I should have changed them all when I started. The rest stays unless someone can come up with clear and accurate alternatives. Wiki-Ed 14:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried to come up with an alternative. Critique is welcome. Valtam 18:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The new changes are somewhat more concise than older versions. In the first bullet point, is it completely necessary to state "Some of the modules fitted to the ship, as well as some of the contents of the ship's cargo hold and drone bay are permanently destroyed, while some modules, cargo and drones may float in space for a time in a salvagable cargo container"? It seems like this could be stated more succinctly. Similarly, under the second bullet, "Therefore, insurance covers only part of the cost of a ship if the ship's market value is higher than its material build cost." is a dramatic understatement. Is there an NPOV way to make it clear that the player's investment will in no way whatsoever be recovered when they insure a T2 hull?--Ot.atma 19:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Both bullets changed. Comments welcome. Valtam 19:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC) (And now I've made changes to the rest...) Valtam 20:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Good changes Valtam. :) Wiki-Ed 20:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Wiki-Ed! Though, looking at your user page, wouldn't this article about Eve Online be one of your pet hates (in the first category), as it is ultimately about a "fictional thing"? Just kidding! P.S. That Crete 1941 picture is amazing - do you have links to any similar ones? Valtam 20:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it reads much better now! I couldn't resist pushing readability a little more - please restore if I've inadvertantly changed the meanings that can be read out of it. I still don't feel right about the last sentence - "Therefore, wise players purchase upgraded clones sufficient to hold all their skillpoints. (This is known as "keeping your clone up-to-date".)". I agree that keeping one's clone up to date is a basic part of the game, and that it is foolish not to do this. But I can't help thinking that the phrase "wise players" will make someone flip out later on down the line. --Ot.atma 20:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ot.atma - I agree with your changes, except the 3rd bullet needs to note that you can be podded only by other players - if an NPC destroys your ship, you are safe hanging around in your pod. And regarding updating your clone, you don't have to do it, but it would be a dumb and unnecessary move not to do so, so I don't know how to put it. Valtam 20:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

OK - I changed "wise players" to "players who value their skill points". Some people using alts don't value SPs - they want cheap clones. Everyone else does though... Valtam 20:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Very solid. (: It may sound pedantic at first blush, but it gets the point across just right. Now to check that third bullet point. --Ot.atma 22:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a question for TlinPA and related edits today (10/30): You say "Generally, NPCs will not attack a pod." Is there ever a situation where an NPC will attack a pod? I don't know the answer. If anyone does, I'd love to know! Thanks, Valtam 19:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of a reason they would, short of a glitch. It's not typical behavior is what I'm trying to say.TIinPA 19:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the word "Generally" in that sentence, but can't think of an alternative right now... Valtam 21:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

NPCs (both Pirate and CONCORD) are not capable of targeting pods, thus it is impossible for NPCs to pod players. A dev has confirmed this in #eve-chaos on coldfront.net, however seing as there is no public chat log I can't cite it, thus I have left the bullet as it is, hope that points you in the right direction if you are continuing to research the topic. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 20:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it worth noting that modules and implants can't be insured? Willingness to throw away mounted modules is a major part of gameplay, imo. A ship's fittings can easily cost more than the hull.--Ot.atma 21:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It is covered in the sense that the article only says that a ship can be insured - no mention of modules, or implants. I'll take a stab at some additional wording... Valtam 21:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I just added parentheticals to the two bullets noting the lack of insurance for mods and implants. Valtam 21:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

With the release of Kali/Revelations, the entry in this section which reads Most of the ship's modules, cargo hold contents and drone bay contents are destroyed. If anything survives, it floats in space for a time in a salvageable cargo container. is now inaccurate. Does anyone understand the new salvaging system well enough to update this?Ot.atma 18:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, updated. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 19:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have also updated the section, to match the other sections in the article, added references to the player guide and EVE support and wikified some of the terms in the article. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 19:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"This patch will also only run on windows XP/Vista."

I have removed this comment as it seems inaccurate, no one I speak to has come across any suggestion this may be true, and at least one person is currently connecting to Singularity (Test Server) using windows 2000. This may be a rumour that has come from the fact that Dragon changed the requirements from W9x/2K/XP to 2KSP3 or XPSP1 due to new encryption APIs employed by the EVE Client. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 18:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Advancement Paragraph

Imo it's now a bloated mess, over complicated with unneeded references/comparisons, the paragraph I mean is this

Another distinguishing feature of this advancement system is that there is no upper limit for a player character. Currently, a character can learn a maximum of 340,000,000 skillpoints. The most specialized 'learning' character can learn at most 20,000,000 skillpoints per year; to reach 340,000,000 skillpoints would require 17 years of real time. In addition, the maximum number of skillpoints is increased with every expansion. To prevent confusion, the total skillpoint number above reflects a character which had specialized in the ships of every race, when in reality it is considered most efficient to stick to one race's ships. In addition, if a character trains the last level of high-rank skills, this training takes a very long time (many months), and the returns on this training are marginal, relative to the previous levels of the skill. As a result, a 3-month-old character could successfully compete with a 3-year-old character in certain areas, if the 3-month-old character had specialized in one field. By way of comparison, if WoW were to have an advancement system similar to that in EVE, a 3-year-old WoW character would be a healer, fighter, crafter, druid, hunter, etc. all in one. The hypothetical 3-month-old character in WoW would just be high level in one of the 'classes'. EVE is unique in this respect—in most games, players bring their characters to the maximum level possible and then create a new character of a different class. In EVE however, players can develop their characters to be one or all 'classes' from the very beginning.:

I honestly dont think it add's anything worthwhile at all to the article as a whole, is quite vague in some areas, generally confusing and just way way too large. Opinions? --89.100.1.161 18:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I worked on the paragraph, but didn't write it originally. I think it is someone's attempt to convince new players that it is worth playing Eve, even though they will never catch up with older players, in terms of skillpoints. Hence the Wow comparison. It can go, as far as I'm concerned... Valtam 21:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned it dosn't bring anything particularly to the article and probably requires removing, the lack of references mean that there is little that can be salvaged from the section. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 22:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Dates

Is it some kind of policy to wikify dates? If so, why? --89.100.1.161 04:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, by wikifing months and days it allows the date to be displayed in the readers preferred format regardless of how it is entered into the article. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 09:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, seems a bit stupid, but if its a rule its a rule. --89.100.1.161 15:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It does kind of make sense, when you realise that in some countries 17 October is the norm and in others October 17 is the norm. It also kind of annoys me that you can't use ordinal suffixes (1st, 2nd, 3rd) etc. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 16:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Merger

CCP and White Wolf Publishing recently merged together. I would add that someplace to the main page, but I'm not sure what the best place to put it is. The press release can be found right on Eve Online's main page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.204.201.206 (talk) 16:03, 13 November, 2006 (UTC)

• The CCP and White Wolf merger dosn't relate directly to EVE, both the CCP hf and White Wolf, Inc. articles were updated with the news as it was released at the fanfest. From what CCP and WW have said CCP will continue to develop EVE as planned, taking on a World of Darkness MMO. WW will formally take over running the EVE Collectable Card Game and continue to develop their own paper based RPG products and make a start on paper based EVE products. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 18:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• I don't know how direct you would consider this, but the devs have stated that they will be using "walking in stations" experience when they develop the WoD MMO, and it seems like plans for avatars and planetary interaction went from tentative to definite when the WoD MMO was announced. Geno Z Heinlein 17:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• As with any part of wikipedia if you can cite your sources then feel free to include it. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 18:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)