Talk:EverQuest

EQMac v. EQPC

The version of EQ that runs on the EQMac server (Al'Kabor) is so different from 'standard' EQ that it should be listed as a seperate version. Generally speaking: EQMac is EQ as it was in October 2002. Old zones: Freeport, Plane of Mischief, Plane of Hate, EC, Oasis. Old spells: lucy.alkabor.com - generally EQMac spells have longer cast/recast/fizzle times and lower damage. Old mob graphics No mini-map. Old Bazaar.

Additionaly EQMac's version of the Planes of Power uses the old non-nerfed version of the major PoP mobs. Making it significantly harder than the current version of PoP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.230.28 (talk) 06:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Added Al'Kabor to special rules servers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.230.28 (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Vanguard

Does the comment about Vanguard really belong in the "EverQuest expansions" section? It really has very little to do with EQ at all. I think it should be removed. If it is going to remain, it should be updated as the game has already been released (and bought by Sony). 65.216.189.2 12:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved it from "expansions" to "development" - it's related, and adds to knowledge (I didn't know it before I read it) and if it's limited to a single sentence I don't think it's a problem. I read it kind of like the little thing at the end of a movie that tells you how everyone fared later in life (a la Animal House). JohnInDC 13:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheat site

Every link to mysupersales should be flushed ASAP. That is a cheat site where one buys money and players in violation of the EULA. Account that have been bought are routinly cancelled. I notice may one shot wonders add the offending link. Dominick 01:50, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

EverCrack

While computer addiction is not funny, the word "EverCrack" is never used as a serious name for this game. It's in the same satirical ballpark as "ProgressQuest". Also, would an example of Sony advertising this game as addictive be the slogan "You're in our world now."? --Mrwojo 21:07 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

In-game, we all use the term "EverCrack". Another is (among old flatuators like me) "Why do you think they call it drop" Dominick 18:18, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Dominick. I would have to say that when talking to other gamers I always refer to it as EverCrack. Only when talking to non gamers do I call it everquest. (A recovered evercrack addict)--Drewlew 04:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

For anyone still disputing this fact, I'm also confirming that users of the game and past players like myself did and do refer to the game as EverCrack. Sony's advertisement isn't really in dispute because that is factual. EverQuest is an online "world" notated by different locations. --Mnemnoch 02:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Jargon

Added Game Play Jargon section, I will think of terms and add as needed. Please add more that I dont think of, and wikify them, I used EQ_CAMPING for camping in EQ, so we can talk about that in terms of EQ. Dominick 01:40, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jargon: Where do you stop? I understand including terms that are specific to EverQuest and/or Online Gaming, or MMOs like "WTB" (Want to Buy), "WTS" (Want to Sell) etc. But come on ...WTF, WTH (What the f*ck, what the hell)? TY (thank you)? Those are straight up leet speak or Internet short hand that can be seen anywhere on the net and are not specific to gaming. If we are going to add those 3 ..there should be about 50 more that I see every day when I play EQ....OMG, OMFG, PWNED, OWNED, PLZKTHX...I could go on :) Comments? --Naha|^(talk) 23:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Flowers of Happiness vandal

FoH is a guild on the PvP servers, known for pranks. Some call them griefers, but I don't agree. (How can you grief on a no-holds-barred server?) While these are not adverts, per se, they are vandalism. Perhaps we should have a entry for EQ guilds in general, and have entries off that about each guild. This is a fascinating social aspect of the game, that may be lost forever if not captured in a wiki. Dominick 13:11, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

FoH & Guild Information, In General

Guilds in EverQuest generally have a short life-span. It would be pointless to attempt to list information about guilds by guild-name. A generalized, non-specific section on player guilds (which is already included in the EQ subject) is more than enough. Message boards abound which can deal with the listing, re-listing, and tracking of individual guilds in the game.

This is retarded. The original uber-guids of EQ are well-known and should be listed. fohguild.org forums remain a long-lasting and well-known MMORPG resource and developed because of FoH's fame in the EQ universe. Thus it would not be 'pointless' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.230.28 (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Category

This article is in the following categories: Category:EverQuest games and expansions and Category:Massively multiplayer online role-playing games. Isn't the latter redundant?

EverQuest is in Category:EverQuest games and expansions, which is in Category:EverQuest, which is in ... Category:Massively multiplayer online role-playing games. I guess it COULD be in both, to simplify things, but I wanted to float a balloon on this. --Golbez 16:37, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Guilds have a short life-span? I agree that is true but there have been MANY long loved guilds, to the point where it is quite worthy of attention. Fires of Heaven being the main example (others being Triton, Legacy of Steel, Keepers of the Faith, Township Rebellion ,and mainly Talisman, the best guild in the game), FoH as main example have an extremely popular msgboard that became popular amoung even developers in Everquest....eventually the guild leader Furor was invited by Blizzard to work on World of Warcraft. Stories abound of guilds donating money to keep their guild leaders running the guild and out of fulltime work (Stasis on Prexus as an example).

wee

Everquest is addicting but is based off of the humans natural curiosity. It is a good game but you cant let it destroy your life. I my self think it is an awesome game and the graphics are incredible. Dont waste your life because everquest isn't the real world it's not your life.

List of Zones

Might it be an idea to put this list into a table of some kind?

Perhaps instead of creating 100+ stub articles on each and every zone in EQ a zones of EverQuest article could be made instead? --Mrwojo 21:00, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a better idea. Shall get started on it later unless somebody has an objection. --Kevin 09:53, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

extereemly good idea tooto 19:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have now moved all the text over from the existing zone pages but am unsure what to do with the now redundant pages. Something now needs to be done with the now redunant zone pages and Category: Everquest Zones. --Kevin 22:48, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Individual zone pages should redirect to zones of EverQuest so that they aren't accidentally re-created. We can put the location categories up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. --Mrwojo 00:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The wikibook listed at right no longer produces a page of information.

The above proposed article zones of EverQuest has fallen to the AfD axe. Can and should a table or listing be created here? Loosely related to Zones, the picture in the main article with the caption "A Sand Giant engaging a group in a desert-themed zone, Oasis of Marr." is no longer valid, as there is no longer a zone named Oasis of Marr. It was subsumed into a revamped South Ro with the Secrets of Faydwer expansion. The mob still exists, and the 'place' can be found, but not as described. Should that picture be removed, or merely re-captioned? Being very very new to Wiki things I am leery of changing what I find 192.223.226.6 (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to edit remembering the critical Wikipedia policies: items must be verifiable and must be presented in a neutral point of view. (and others you can see on the welcome page.) You can't break anything, but use the "Show Preview" button to make sure what you have done looks right, and if someone reverts your edits, discuss on the talk page rather than just reverting to your version. Re: sand giant pic, changing the caption to say So Ro would not be acceptable, because that is not where the pic was taken. Going into detail in the caption explaining that Oasis doesnt exist any more would be factual, but probably getting too deep into game trivia (WP:NOT#Game Guide). Probably going generic and simply stating something along the lines of "a desert themed zone" would likely be the best approach.GundamsЯus (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I will argue that a breakdown of zones belongs on the many many MANY ***MANY*** EQ sites. Some are linked in the article. As part of even a VERY robust general purpose encyclopedia, I think that much detail in the gameplay is excessive. This means that I would probably kill your edit. With 375 zones to detail, it would be HUGE as an article of its own. As a segment? I can't see it. I would encourage you to discuss this more here. I'll look up the AfD too. It may have died long before the axe fell on it. I never looked at it. sinneed (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zones_of_EverQuest_(2nd_nomination) succeeded largely by the argument that there wasn't enough interest on the part of editors to make and keep the article "good". There is also note that such articles tend to gather lots of Original Research and that Wikipedia is not a game guide. I think letting it die sounds good.sinneed (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Structure of the article

section 2 and 3 has information that does not belong to Everquest. I suggest a reqrite and moving he info t0 MMORPG. SYSS Mouse 03:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• How do development and zones of EverQuest not fit? Elfguy 8 July 2005 14:12 (UTC)
• I was wondering the same thing, Elf. --Nahallac Silverwinds July 8, 2005 14:59 (UTC)

subsites?

what about creating sub sites for e.g. abbreviations; list of game commands/emotes; class/race guides? esp. the abbreviations part on the mainpage can get messy quickly. --Kajolus 09:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

feel free to make one for commands, there already are tons for each expansion, for many zones, even for some gods Elfguy 12:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

just created EverQuest game commands - where should we link it? sorry, am not really the guy who can makes things nice...therefore could somebody please? thank you :) --Kajolus 6 July 2005 15:01 (UTC)

• Comment the site I created is now up on "vote for deletion", please check and vote :) --Kajolus 8 July 2005 09:34 (UTC)

Good job Kaj! We should probably make a "See Also" section for Wiki articles that are not already linked in the main body of the EQ article. This section would be a good place to link your new list. [in fact I'll do that right now] Also, we should add a brief description off to the side of each command, identifying what it does for people not familiar with the game. Feel free to start on that ...lol  :) --Nahallac Silverwinds July 6, 2005 15:12 (UTC)

While I don't have a problem with sites being linked that support ige, I went ahead and edited out rpgexpert.com, I feel at this point it has turned in to nothing but a billboard for IGE. I'll probably add something in later detailing RMTs a bit more, as I have some experience there. -- Czaemon 00:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

out of curiousity, what are the guidelines about culling old comments? (yeah, I know, they can't be -that- hard to find, but hey, it's 330 am...) Czaemon 07:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

EverQuest Slang, Acronyms, Lingo

I've started a Wiki named EverQuest Slang, Acronyms, Lingo .

Please contribute.

• nice. could you please provide a link? can't seem to find it?--64.236.164.193 07:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

WIKIBOOKS

the work on the EQ wikibook (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/EverQuest) is progressing slowly but steadily. PLEASE all with ingame expertise, have a look and see if you can contribute. thanking you! --Kajolus 11:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

(minor) inaccuracy - PvP on "blue" servers

EQ only allows player versus player (PvP) combat on the PvP-specific server, in designated arenas, or in a consensual duel in a limited number of locations.

As far as I know, you can still "go PvP" on a "blue" server by turning in the Tome of Discord to a Priest of Discord... Of course, it doesn't happen very often, so this is probably nit-picking (which is why I didn't want to edit the article myself).

Kyrstellaine

• Also, "limited number of locations" - What are the zones in which /duel does not work? I thought it worked everywhere. -- Mewcenary 08:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• The wording implies that there are limited number of zones when not in a duel... meaning that there are a limited number of pvp enabled areas of the game (the arenas in each city and such). /duel works in all zones as far as I know7 Psychobunny2412

• • Dueling is not allowed in the Guild Hall, Guild Lobby, Plane of Knowledge, or Bazaar. 63.88.67.230 (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Price

I would like to know the price of everquest. What is the initial cost? What is the monthly payment?--cattrain 13:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

What a funny question. When I bought the original EQ, I dropped $30 for the CD, $10 for the subscription, and $100 on RAM. Clearly, that last part is optional. Now, for $30 you can get the original game with almost all the expansion packs (minus the most recent two), and the subscription is around $13. The game is definitely going to slow down now that EQ2 is out. Buy that at $30, the subscription at $15, and the price of the expansions as they come out (usually around $20-35 dollars). Then watch as you can get what you spend $200 dollars on for $30.

EQ2 slowing EQ? No a lot of people are returning, now that they see what EQ2 is about. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

New subsection needed: classes

A description of each of the classes seems to me to be the next logical addition to this wiki.

and races.--Late Leo 20:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Done now. Vranak 00:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Emotes

A section on emotes would be good. I quit playing EQ about 2 years ago and still find myself typing emotes. The / is stuck in my mind as much as anything from my thousands of hours of EQ.

Eh, no. A list of Everquest emotes does not belong in an encyclopedia. RobertM525 18:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep removing my valid submissions?

Greetings, Twice now I have been attempting to add links and they are being removed almost instantaneously. Both are valid no-ad, non-commercial, non-supersale-type, 100% EQ-related with high daily traffic. www.khatnip.com (My site with Everquest equipment breakdowns and analysis) www.evilgamer.net (The Shadowknight class site. Was SKO.org -> shadowknight.org -> evilgamer.net) /Not mine. If contributions cannot be made then it defeats the purpose of the Wiki entirely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KhatNip (talk • contribs) .

The Shadowknight link is probably ok, given that we have other class sites listed. However, the link to your site is probably being reverted as self-promotion. Even though it's not a commercial site, it looks suspicious when the owner of a site adds a link to it on Wikipedia. The reasoning is that Wikipedia is not here to provide free advertising. We already have a LOT of EQ2-related links. We need pretty good justification to add more. If your site is popular enough, perhaps someone else will eventually add it. Powers 20:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I myself pay for the domain and hosting and write the code for the site and receive nothing in return except that I believe it is useful to fellow players.

Self promotion to what end? It's free to anyone and I neither expect nor even have a means of receiving compensation in any way. (unless you mean an occasional Thank You ::from my users is a little over the top)

When I initially included the link in May I didn't have an account here so someone seeing it as Self-Promoting is moot since it wasn't under my name.

If `someone else` adds it any time in the future that is just going to look suspicious to you folks and the same type of back-and-forth would just happen again to another innocent.

Wikipedia was not designed to allow a select few to dictate to the masses what they might find useful and delete submissions accordingly. However, if it's deemed that my site should not be included then so be it, it doesn't affect anything other than someone that might benefit from the information might not know it's out there. KhatNip 21:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)KhatNip

I was just letting you know the reasoning; it may not necessarily be valid reasoning. =) It's true that links that are simply added to an article without comment are usually assumed to be advertisement rather than actual useful links for readers of the article. However, it's also true that such assumptions are almost always correct. The ideal way to deal with this when it happens is to bring it up on the talk page, as you have done. Now we're discussing it. That's the way Wikipedia works. Powers 02:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Economy

On the remarks about the economy of EQ it would be good to get some references. The phrase, "and its GDP per capita is higher than that of China and India." is confusing. What does "its" refer to? EQ? If so better to say that. Also, do you really mean the GDP is higher than China and India combined? Using which conversion rate (you state that one plat > one Yen and that plat has devalued. At which point was the GDP of EQ higher (a date insertion would be good). What was the GDP per capita of EQ by comparison? Is that at nominal or PPP? It's a nice piece of trivia but needs clarifying. Candy 12:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

EQ RPG

Can someone who knows more about the table-top role-playing game add some information? Like, overview of the game, at least, maybe? Maybe a little blurb about how this or that was handled? Or at the least, pointing to an external source or other Wikipedia article that would have it? I've looked around for awhile but haven't found anything (though, I freely admit that my Google-Fu is weak). I'm sure even abit of information would be helpful.

-- Last Thylacine 00:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Making 'Zones of EverQuest' pages

I've done two now, for Velk's lab, and Old Sebilis. Make some more, peoples! ChrisWright1979 17:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

added East Commonlands ChrisWright1979

Note to users: Chris and his various incarnations have been blocked indefinitely. I've proposed deletion of his three "Zones of EverQuest" pages as way too much detail for a general encyclopedia (an EQ wiki would be a better place for this information). Once those are gone, Category:Zones of EverQuest can go too. Powers ^T 15:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added an external link to the main article to a wiki devoted to EverQuest. I am not the owner, but I am a contributor. It would welcome deteailed zone descriptions, among other entries. --Rcherrick 20:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I had a good look at the wiki linked to, but it's currently very brief in terms of EverQuest content, so I've removed it for now. Suggest it gets considered again when it's a larger and has more content. --Oscarthecat 21:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a size in mind? I am not aware of any wiki focused on EverQuest with siginificantly more content. And I think you may not have gone deep enough into the content if you only found 20 pages. There are double that just on raid and group missions, miniumum. Also, perhaps replacing the link would provide some incentive for contributers? --Rcherrick 23:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

From the statistics page of PaladinWiki. Not all of these pages are EQ pages, but most are. Rcherrick 22:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

PaladinWiki statistics

There are 5,062 total pages in the database. This includes "talk" pages, pages about PaladinWiki, minimal "stub" pages, redirects, and others that probably don't qualify as content pages. Excluding those, there are 171 pages that are probably legitimate content pages.

There have been a total of 54,748 page views, and 2,938 page edits since the wiki was setup. That comes to 0.58 average edits per page, and 18.63 views per edit.

It's worth noting that my site, the EQ KnowledgePit is an EverQuest wiki with a decent base of content at this point (80k+ pages including the item/spell databases), and a handful of editors (see Special:ContributionScores; I do entirely too much editing for Special:Recentchanges to have much of a chance to show the others), looking for more. If someone wanted to add that link (the conflict of interest rule - total garbage in many cases - prevents me from doing so) I believe that it would provide the end user with another plug for information. Not to mention I would appreciate it on a personal level.

This is a place that an article for each zone would be appropriate. In fact, if it weren't for the fact that I'm spending so much time competing with the big guys for market share on Secrets of Faydwer information, I'd have many more zone-specific articles written ;) ~Floppie^{(talk • contribs)} 07:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Per the discussion, a month or so prior to this posting, the links to your wiki do not meet Wikipedia's external link guidelines and have been removed (again) from the article. Please do not repost them until such time as your site clearly meets the guidelines for external links. 144.15.255.227 (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no discussion about my site a month or so prior to this posting. My site was not the target of this discussion. Additionally, since the last time my site was discussed, it has come to meet the guidelines. Look before you remove it - contributor numbers are up, and the history has grown substantially. ~Floppie^{(talk • contribs)} 21:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

So it was in October, [1] not November. Your site still doesnt meet WP external link guidelines. Quit adding it. 144.15.255.227 (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was in October. October was three and a half months ago. A lot changes in that time.

How does the site not meet the EL guidelines? The guidelines clearly state substantial history, and number of editors. Both those conditions are met. Oh yeah, and let's not forget (and I quote from WP:WIARM#What "Ignore all rules" means #7): Following the rules is less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate - the goal is to provide information to the end user. That's what I'm doing. ~Floppie^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your link does not meet WP:EL on grounds 4, 11, 12, and 13 as well as WP:EL#Advertising and conflicts of interest. You have been told this before and your site has NOT changed enough to merit reconsideration. "Break all the Rules" applies IF YOU CAN PROVIDE VALID JUSTIFICATION that breaking the rules in this case makes sense, and you have not. Please remove the inappropriate link. 144.15.255.227 (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It breaks none of those. It is not mainly intended to promote a website; it is intended to promote the availability of free information, including that of Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia, however, by design does not contain the sort of fine-grained information that a more specific site such as mine does. It is not a social networking site, and I really can't figure out how you would derive that. It is also not a blog or personal webpage (unless you're talking about my userpage on the site, which is not what I'm linking to). And, last but not least, it doesn't break 13 - it has a substantial history of stability and number of editors. The only thing it breaks is the conflict of interest - and as I said when I first added it weeks ago, I made a post here suggesting it and no action was taken within a month. Sitting around waiting for someone to notice it and say "hey that's a good idea" is no way to get something done. A month is ample time.

Additionally, I was not citing WP:IAR as a reason to keep my link. I was citing that specific point in Wikipedia's policy; and again, I'll emphasize: less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate. Your tone is way too hostile to keep a civil discussion with. If you want the link removed so badly, bring in an administrator to support your decision who can speak civilly.

Oh yeah, and one last thing. Justification was provided. The goal being to promote the free availability of information. ~Floppie^{(talk • contribs)} 22:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And one more idea. How about rather than simply starting an argument/edit war, you provide constructive criticism. What, in your eyes, needs to change for the site to be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floppie (talk • contribs) 22:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow - for one thing, you need to listen to the point that has been told you a number of times and stop adding your own site due to violations of conflict of interest. Your initial posting of the site several months ago is understandable due to lack of knowledge of Wikipedia policies. But since you have been repeatedly told not to, and yet continue to do so, your actions smack of self-promotion. Secondly as a Wiki site, you need to have a 'substantial' editing base - a dozen editors in the period of a week does not qualify as substantial (sustained editing of hundreds of editors each week over periods of several months to a year would BEGIN to satisfy that requirement). Third, you would need to show that your site is somehow on the complete content level equivilent to material included the other sites listed (Allakazam and Lucy and EQtraders) (and I am not even sure they should be included). When you begin to get close to those requirements you could again ask to have your site considered for includion, BUT YOU should not be adding the site yourself. As asked above, you should take the initiative and remove the link. GundamsRus (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I have not "continued to do so". I left it alone for several months, then made a post here. After leaving that post to sit with not a single comment for a month, I went ahead and added it. Read the revision comment when I added it on January 11.

Second of all, a dozen editors get quite a bit done. And finally, trying to talk to you people is like trying to talk to a fucking brick wall. I'm done with this site - all the (rather ridiculously) hostile comments when I'm trying to have a fucking civil discussion have managed to alienate an editor. Good job. Remove it yourself, dickhead. ~Floppie^{(talk • contribs)} 04:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and one last thing. If you people had been civil and asked me to remove it, I would have been happy to. Instead, I was met with personal attacks and rude comments. ~Floppie^{(talk • contribs)} 04:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"[I] made a post here. After leaving that post to sit with not a single comment" suggesting that the link should be readded; you "continued" to re-add a link to your own site in contravention to advice that you had recieved (several times) that it was inappropriate for you to add your own link.

If you people had been civil and asked me to remove it, I would have been happy to. I see that you were asked twice in this thread alone, along with being told previously that it was inappropriate for you to be adding a link to your site.

a dozen editors get quite a bit done. I do not doubt that in the least. But a dozen editors does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for external links to Wiki sites.

I am sorry that you find application of WP guidelines to have been a 'personal attack'. It was not meant to be.GundamsRus (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Server Architecture

What database and system software are the Everquest servers running? That would be interesting information for this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.91.209 (talk • contribs).

Yes, it would be. I seem to recall they use Linux and the software was based on the Unreal engine but I think my memory may be faulty. Will try to check it out. I do remember they have some big server farms. Candy 10:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if an operation this big was running on Linux, but it is possible. We should try to find out what OS it is running and what kind of data center. There must also be a commerical database system behind it, for storing persistant changes. For example, WoW uses Oracle servers for that. DonPMitchell 20:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

To the average player on a SoE Server, you're not going to get that kind of information out of a developer, 'Guide', or "GM". The information that you're looking for would be found from their servers in San Diego, California. --Mnemnoch 02:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Uneditable Vandalism

At the end of the Development section I am seeing a sentence put on there how EverQuest is for losers, etc etc. But am unable to edit it out as the sentence does not appear on the edit page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.143.138.123 (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Escape to Norrath

What about Escape to Norrath? The free-and-limited version of EQ? --CrisDias 14:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Um... has anybody noticed this?

It comes to my attention that all this article contains is LOL repeated a few times... This is, of course, vandalism, and the article should be made an actual article again. I have no idea why nobody seems to notice this... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.69.247.192 (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Double post, sorry. 72.197.143.6 16:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this vandalism?

I'm thinking of the line:

• Emma Lewis and the Evil Jew Sand Crabs, by Richard Simmons (Jan. 2007)

I surely suspect it is, but since this is a game and all... Greswik 14:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A Google search turns up nothing. I'm willing to take the chance, and have reverted it. JohnInDC 14:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fiery Avenger

New article at Fiery Avenger - unsure whether it warrants its own article, there's quite a few items in EverQuest, so creating wikipedia articles for them might not be a great idea. Anything in it worth salvaging and merging into this article? Appreciate any thoughts. --Oscarthecat 10:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to fall pretty far into the trivial. I don't think it deserves its own article and I don't think that the Everquest article needs to be cluttered up with what people happen to know about the thousands of weapons and items available in the game. JohnInDC 11:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully with JohnInDC. I play EverQuest, and there is nothing about the Fiery Avenger (or any quest obtained item, for that matter) to make it notable. There is no point in merging it with the EverQuest main article, let alone having it's own separate article. Delete it.

Another vote for simply deleting the Avenger article. Jeff Alexander 00:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's one of the epic quests isn't it? I don't think it's notable enough for an article by itself, but as an epic item it would seem one of the more notable items in the game. Mark Grant 02:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You folks may have a point. I simply added the article because, honestly, it was the most notable item from EverQuest that came to my mind. I remember in my days playing EQ that for a long time during the first couple of years that the game was released it was the most talked about weapon in the game and I figured it deserved some kind of recognition on here. I remember the first time I saw someone wielding it, it was very awe-inspiring. To see a sword with flames covering the blade... I was impressed. Not to mention the sword became something of a legend among first-generation EQers. Just my 2 cents. If you want it deleted that badly, I'm sure you can make it happen, but just so you know I am against it being deleted. I think it's a valid article. Thank you. And sorry it took me so long to respond btw. Still trying to get used to how wikipedia works.  :) NeoBix 00:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a more general article on epic quests in the game as a phenomenon with a few examples of end results would be more relevant? They were one of the main things that my guild did when we were playing, so they would appear to be a notable part of the game. Wasn't Everquest the first game to have these kind of quests? I know the epic quest concept has appeared in other MMOGs since. Mark Grant 15:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted after expiry of prod. --Oscarthecat 15:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Paladin's Fiery Avenger epic item is, by even developer admission, the most strenuous "epic" to obtain...not to mention that it did include graphics that were particle graphics not seen by any online game prior to note. It took me, personally, almost a year of not really going directly towards achieving this item. When I began playing for the item directly, I accomplished it with a few parties over the course of about 2 weeks. This is prior to using 3rd Party Software. --Mnemnoch 02:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Guilds Again

The article refers several times to guilds, but there is currently no explanation of what guilds within the game actually are. 207.69.137.23 02:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing my prior comment and replacing with this one: Guilds are defined in the article and there is a linking article to Everquest player guilds. --Mnemnoch 03:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

EQ Mac forum

I have added back in the link to the unofficial EQ Mac webiste, EQmac.com. The "official" Everquest for Macintosh forum is moribund and unused and, while "official", utterly useless as a resource for EQMac users. JohnInDC 22:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• There are no other links to fan forums there. If there was a link to the IGN forums and other fan resources, I could see this, but the only link is to the official Sony site, so this really shouldn't be there. It's confusing and implies that the site is official, while regardless of its quality, it is not. -Mike Payne (talk - contribs) 23:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not a matter of quality but of utility. Indeed what is "confusing" is for a new Everquest for Macintosh player to arrive at the official Sony EQ Mac forum and see perhaps four entries over the space of a year. Everquest for Macintosh is a different program than Everquest - billed and administered separately - and Sony's support is so indifferent that the *only* site for EQ Mac information is the site to which I am trying to link. Indeed until recently, EQ Macintosh subscribers did not have posting access at *all* to the official site. For nearly four years, EQ Mac users could read posts entered by others who happened to have access by virtue of separate EQ-PC accounts -- but couldn't post. To the *official* forums! The upshot is that virtually everyone who plays the game on the Macintosh side is also a member of the EQMac.com forum; that's where they go for infomation, that's where they go to talk to one another.
  • This forum needs to be linked. Any confusion is easily enough addressed by a tag that explains what the linked site is, as I did in my original edit. JohnInDC 23:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Alternatively I'd be happy to add a link in the main text near the brief discussion of EQ for Mac OS X. I don't think it matters where the link is as long as it is somewhere. Thoughts? JohnInDC 00:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I have edited the brief discussion of Everquest for Macintosh to include this link, as well as a brief explanation of how it came to pass that an unofficial site has become the de facto (indeed only) source of on-line information about this flavor of the game. That should cover both "appropriateness" and "confusion" concerns. JohnInDC 13:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I guess I can live with what's there now. -Mike Payne (talk - contribs) 13:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. It's good to find a middle ground. JohnInDC 13:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I still feel that this straight advertisement for the EQ Mac site is not appropriate. Individuals who use google to search for "everquest macintosh" will find EQMAC.COM at the top of the search list. Perhaps it should have its own page, if it seems appropriate to point people there. If it *DOES* belong here, then I think a section titled "EQ Macintosh Unofficial Forum" would be better. The section contains no information about EQ for Mac, only about "the only popular" Mac-specific web site. Sinneed (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care for the particular formulation to which you objected, but I care even less for the (since reverted) revision. The "original" version was, as this discussion makes clear, a compromise in the first place; if memory serves, the link to the EQMac site was further up in the body of the article, where EQ for Macintosh was actually discussed. I don't care where or how the forum is mentioned here but for the reasons I've given above, I think it needs to be there. Yes, it's a 3d party unofficial site, but as matters have evolved it is for all practical purposes the official Everquest for Macintosh site. Indeed in the past it was common for Sony administrators to communicate with the EQ Mac community at EQMac and not bother with the official forums at all.

As for a page for EQMac itself - I dunno. There's really no more to be said about EQMac than "it's the same as Everquest for PC except that it stops at Planes of Power and suffers a few quirky support issues to which the PC side is not subject." I don't know that there's really enough there to warrant an entire separate article.

This may be / is probably all water under the bridge inasmuch as you've reverted your edits (thank you for that), but I figure I may as well comment on them just for the record. JohnInDC (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed a "correction" today from someone who, like me, thought the problems with the official forum were due to the type of computer, rather than the type of account. I note that EQ Mac accounts now allow access to the EQ forums. I also changed the title of the section to reflect that the "problems" were with the forum, not the game. Sinneed (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Good clarification on the title. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Publishing Company Edits

Shouldn't these be immediately reverted due to lack of neutrality and POV?

Which ones in particular? JohnInDC 11:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for A Typical Raid section

I recently added the 'Typical EverQuest play session' section. However I didn't do a huge amount of raiding in EQ when I played, and I haven't played since 2003, so I thought it would be best if I left a description of the Raid phenonema to someone more up-to-date with the latest raiding practices and trends. Cheers — Vranak 00:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This was removed as Original Research without any cites. PLEASE PROVIDE CITATIONS when adding material to this encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.15 (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Cruft Removal

I cut out much uncited cruft that would be appropriate and generally helpful on a fansite but is not an encyclopedia. Before returning any of it to the article IT NEEDS TO BE PROPERLY CITED FROM A RELIABLE SOURCE.207.69.137.15 04:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're certainly good at stripping down an article – hopefully you'll be able to build it back up a bit now. Citations are important, yes, but mainly for debatable matters. If you know much about EverQuest, you might realize on second glance that a lot of what you just removed is either common knowledge or trivially-citable.

And if you have any interest in getting along with your fellow Wikipedians, you may want to lay off the SHOUTING, as well as refraining from labelling contributions of others pejoratively as 'cruft'. Best regards, Vranak 05:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

See the recent Featured Article: Dungeons and Dragons for what a good gaming article would look like. Even if sourced, most of the stuff I removed doesn't really belong in an encylopedia at all (and most of the items are still referenced in other parts of the article anyway.) If there is anthing that qualifies as 'fancruft' the material removed from the article fits the definition. It may be fine and helpful on a fansite, but does not belong here.207.69.137.22 23:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I suppose maintaining an encyclopedic look & feel takes priority over providing comprehensive information. Vranak 00:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This being an encyclopedia, the answer to your questions is obviously and overwhlemingly: Yes, maintaining the directives of Wikipedia to provide sourced, NPOV articles is more important than being a fansite. See WP:ISNOT 207.69.137.36 02:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and that's exactly how I laid it out: directives versus being a fansite. Vranak 03:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Irony

I fully appreciate the sweeping misuse of the term "irony" but it is well applied to a situation in which a company's Official Support Forum for a particular flavor of its software is closed off to the users of the operating system for whom the Official Forum was ostensibly established. There are two messages here: 1) We care so much about your kind of computer that we provide an Official Support Forum where you can come to us to ask us any kind of question you may have! And 2) your computer OS is so marginalized and meaningless that we can't be bothered to tweak our Support Forum software to permit you to use it. Two messages, two audiences - irony. (See, e.g., "Situational irony" here: Irony, and later this quote from Fowler: “[A]ny definition of irony—though hundreds might be given, and very few of them would be accepted—must include this, that the surface meaning and the underlying meaning of what is said are not the same.”) It may be unintentional here but there it is.

I would go on to say that the substituted adverb "oddly" is even worse - there is nothing "odd" about the situation. It is kind of common in fact to see companies expressing support for Mac OS X which is in fact wholly lacking. For the same reason it is not "curious" (other than in an ironic sense of course). It is, perhaps, "appalling" or "disappointing" or "shameful" but I am sure that everyone can agree that such POV terms aren't appropriate. It may be "embarrassing" but that's an unsourced assertion if there ever were one - who knows if the company, is, in fact, embarrassed? Nor, finally, is this any kind of example of "sarcasm", which is the concept with which irony is most often confounded.

I suggest that we leave "irony" right where it was until an editor can both explain why this isn't ironic, and can supply an adjective that properly captures the dual messages emanating from SOE. (In fairness, "used to" emanate inasmuch as they have fixed it.) JohnInDC (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. I missed the detail that the forum in question was a new one created specifically for Macintosh users. The word "ironic" is appropriate. Jeff Alexander (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Development Hisory - entities

There are a number of different stories as to what companies actually developed EQ. 989 Studios, on somewhat-reputable game fan site evidence, was entirely owned by Sony. Its website 989studios.com now resolves to http://www.us.playstation.com/. Verant Interactive, again on somewhat-reputable game fan site evidence, was an actual spin-off of Sony, and was at least somewhat independent until it was aquired by Sony in 2000 http://www.station.sony.com/sonyonline/, and the www.verant.com name now resolves to that Sony link.

Based on this, I think there is a good bit of misleading information in the 1st paragraph, and in the development history section. There are also conflicting articles. Before I embark on any large edits, I would like to hear any comments. I expect to edit the 1st paragraph to match the above information, with a link to the "history" section, and to expand the "history" section to discuss the conflicting opinions. Sinneed (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I am somewhat embarrassed to admit that I purchased, and still have, a book on the history of Everquest - "Everquest Companion - The Inside Lore of a Game World" by Robert B. Marks, (c) 2003 - that covers a good deal of this territory (e.g., John Smedley was head of Sony Interactive Studios, which changed its name to 989 Studios and then was spun off to Verant in 1999). I can try to reconcile the article with what the book reports - or, someone else with the book can take a crack at it too. The only qualification is that time is very short lately and I would not be getting to this any time soon. Maybe easier would be to compare the book against whatever edits folks go ahead and make. JohnInDC (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Checking through Amazon, I can see the key information to cite. http://www.amazon.com/Everquest-Companion-Inside-Lore-Gameworld/dp/0072229039/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product

While books can be just as wrong as Internet sources, they *TEND* to be a bit more formal. Page 36 talks about 1986 and refers to "...Sony's 989 Studios..." And on Page 38 "Smedley, the head of Sony Interactive Studios (which changed its name first to 989 Studios and then spun off into Verant in 1999)..." And on page 43 Smedley is quoted: "...had decided that the PC side of things was too risky and wasn't a good fit with the Playstation and Playstation 2 setup that the companyh was working on at the time... Brad McQuaid, Russell Shanks, and myself formed Verant." running onto page 44 "Verant Interactive was founded in January 1999, with Smedley at the helm and McQuaid serving as vice president."

Finally, from the Sony site at www.verant.com "SOE began operations in summer of 1995 as an online collaboration between Sony Pictures Entertainment and Sony Corporation of America. In May of 2000, SOE acquired and fully integrated Verant Interactive to further strengthen Sony’s position in multiplayer online gaming. In April of 2006, SOE became Sony Online Entertainment LLC, owned by Sony Pictures Digital and Sony Computer Entertainment America."

This seems to make a coherent picture that matches pieces of each of the several stories. Sinneed (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Wording for lead-in/header text.

EverQuest, often called EQ, is a 3D fantasy-themed massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) that was released on March 16, 1999. The original design is credited to Brad McQuaid, Steve Clover, and Bill Trost. It was developed by Sony's 989 Studios(cite book), and its 1999 spin-off Verant Interactive (cite book). It was published by Sony Online Entertainment (SOE). Since its aquisition of Verant in 1999, SOE develops, runs and distributes EverQuest. (link to SOE/Verant page)

While there is no complete agreement on what constitutes a player (or subscriber), it is generally accepted that EverQuest was, from 2000 until 2004, the most popular MMORPG. EverQuest earned many awards, including GameSpot's Game of the Year Award for 1999.

A sequel , EverQuest II, was released in late 2004. The game has inspired a number of other spinoffs, as well.

OK I did it, and I think it worked. Sinneed (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Feedback?Sinneed (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The Box Art Debate!

Ok, folks. The original box art is not what the innocent, who read this article and may be interested, will find in the stores. Today, if you want to buy EQ, complete, you need to buy the SoF box. If you want to buy it almost complete, you need the "Everquest I: The Anniversary Edition" at $35 or so. Key: If you go to a store to buy EQ you buy "EverQuest: Secrets of Faydwer" $40 or so. On the discount front, you can buy "Everquest: Titanium" at $10 or so.

Thus, if someone wants EQ, It appears they can either download from Sony or they can spring for SoF or look for the old software at discounters.

If you plan to kill my link, please update here, otherwise: Ping, pong, ping, pong, ping, pong. This would be rude and annoying. If you kill my link outright, it is really quite rude, since it becomes orphaned, and deleted. So please don't. I will leave the old image up, with this note in place, to encourage reasonable discussion. Thanks in advance. Sinneed (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an advertisement or shopping guide, and so considerations for helping a current shopper really have no basis in discussion. I support the original box art as being a part of the historical record and thus more appropriate for this article. Keeping up with 'what is current' and not preserving the past is not always a good thing. The guidelines for limiting the use of copyright material would suggest that we do not use two covers in this article. The original cover here and the current cover on the current expansion's article page.GundamsRus (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is, however, a source of knowledge. We had the old box art in a historical section. Today, EQ for PC is SoF. The box art there does include the current expansion... OK that is part of EQ. I see your point, but I don't agree. Sinneed (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Im leaning my support towards the original box art. A good example of original art being used is Donkey Kong (video game), were the arcade title screen is preffered over the NES box art because it was originally an arcade game. I also agree with GundamsRus, where original cover here and the current cover on the current expansion's article page, otherwise the expansion page would be pointless. Salavat (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the artwork that introduced the game. It seems a bit more encyclopedic and informative than a picture of a box that you can see by going to the store. Also it spares editors the (admittedly modest) burden of keeping the box up to date as newer expansions come along. JohnInDC (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I seem to be a minority of one here. :) While there is no tyranny like the majority... "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" seems appropriate. I defer to you, group. :) Sinneed (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"Twink" image

I've taken it out twice because there's nothing special or informative about it. To my eyes it's just one of the millions of screenshots that EQ players have on their hard drives of a toon taking on a mob - the (unsourced and unverifiable) claim about it portraying "one of the most powerful twinks ever" notwithstanding. JohnInDC (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, in general, on the twink image thing. I wonder if more art really will add any value here, anyway. Too... images add substantially to the "real" costs of Wikipedia, and I fear this magnificent tool may "collapse under its own weight"... too much data, too much traffic. Sinneed (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone thinks it needs to stay here, I am killing the Kerafym/Sleeper's Tomb zone section.

There are no discussions of other zones, the article would be GINORMOUS if there were. I considered trying to clean it up, but... really... it just doesn't fit with the rest of the article. Sinneed (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It ended up here as the result of an AfD. Perhaps the section should be re-focused to something like 'major events in the EQ timeline' and when/if enough items with proper sourcing have been gathered it can be spun off to a seperate article.GundamsЯus (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

True... but no one is cleaning it, and it is a mess. Anyone taking a swing at it? Or should it just die a quiet death? Sinneed (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Kerafyrm

Kerafyrm (also called "The Sleeper") is a boss character in the fantasy MMORPG EverQuest.

Originally intended to be unkillable, the character caused a stir in the EverQuest community when the developers of the game (Sony Online Entertainment (SOE) intervened and prevented a group of nearly 200 players from killing him, in November of 2003. SOE later apologized for interfering, and allowed the same group of players to retry the encounter. After a nearly three-hour battle, Kerafyrm was defeated.

Sinneed ... the sleeper was defeated on Rallos Zek, ... 76.179.49.178 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC).

Sleeper's Tomb

In the game, Kerafyrm is guarded by four ancient dragons in a zone called "The Sleeper's Tomb". If all four dragons are defeated by players and are dead at the same time, The Sleeper is awoken, and begins a rampage of death across the game's land of Norrath. This event is particularly unique in EverQuest, because it can only ever be completed once on each game server. Once The Sleeper event is triggered, he will never appear again on that server.

The guild Blood of the Spider on The Rathe server was the first guild system-wide to kill the revamped Ventani (the fourth warder) on July 28, 2001, and therefore wake Kerafyrm. The event caused a stir on the server when the dragon went into multiple zones, including Skyshrine, killing everyone and everything in his path.

On November 17, 2003, after a nearly 3-hour battle, Kerafyrm was defeated. On September 10, 2007, Rashere confirmed on the official Everquest forums that Kerafyrm was bugged at the time of his kill.

“ I can confirm the sleeper's regen one. Whether by pure coincidence or great planning, the zek attack on the Sleeper took place after a patch that broke NPC regen, causing them to regen at a far lower rate than they would normally. The sleeper's normal regen makes him essentially unkillable. ”

-Wrong. The sleeper encounter was difficult because he would Deathtouch every 10 seconds. The encounter description is all wrong too. He would not dissapear after being awaken. When the chinese guild that originally killed the sleeper was doing the event, it was being monitored via the crossrealm channels. When they did finally kill him, a game wide Emote went across, detaling the battle, and the sun being blocked out by all the arrows. The final killblow was delivered by a Ranger, who earned the Title "Dragon Slayer". The only loot was a cloth healm. He is not a boss, he was never intended to be killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmc1184 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As of August 31, 2007, Al'Kabor (Mac-based server) is the one and only official EverQuest server where Kerafyrm still is sleeping.

It has been announced that Kerafyrm will be returning in the expansion Secrets of Faydwer.

Removing and reworking. Also moving it. Sinneed (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

DONE!

Now, if anyone would like to add some citations, that would be cool. I'll try to get excited about it at some point, but I think this is much better now. If anyone doesn't agree, please give it a whirl. I would also love to see FV herself added, although she appears in the game only as part of GM events. I am still dubious about whether The Sleeper merits all this attention. Sinneed (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Come on! Surely someone has something to add or at least something to say! :) Sinneed (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no way to source the "word-of-mouth" story of which guild on which server 1st killed the 4th warder, so I have removed it. If anyone can source this in a useful way, the text is included above and can be copied back. I point out that many of these 1st-kill stories are not accurate. Some guilds avoid public notice and simply *NEVER* tell of their 1st-kill accomplisments. Sinneed (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The deletion note from the removed "Kerafym" article was applied to the EQ article. I removed that tag. If there needs to be further editing to the heavily edited and much-reduced Sleeper section, that is great... roll on. Or kill the section. I remain dubious about its belonging in a general encyclopedia. Or whatever. But the article deletion tag does not belong on the EQ article. The decision on the cited deletion discussion was to merge the article into here... where we have carved away at it. I would argue that the redirect from Kerafym should be removed. sinneed (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone said something about needed source for the first sleeper kill on Rallos Zek. I played the character named "Ornette" in the guild Wudan on Rallos Zek, and I know there's no way to prove that. But soon after the day of the kill I added a post to my website which includes a screenshot of the sleeper's corpse and an excerpt from a guildmate's everquest client log file after he got the killing blow (also, from archive.org before I moved it to a separate page). I have other screenshots of the second fight as well: enraged, 14%, 41%, 44%. This was also published in the Got Game? column where he reprints the serverwide GM message after the sleeper was killed, noting the time, server, guilds, and that it was the first. Another screenshot of GM Brenlo doing a serverwide message --66.45.116.55 (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new line in the lead-in/summary paragraph - which I removed.

" Its popularity, along with contemporaries Ultima Online and Dark Age of Camelot, may be credited with sparking the now-thriving MMORPG genre." ...was added to the lead in paragraph. I have removed it, since this is very VERY blurry opionion without any citations or factuality that I can see.

UO people would point out that UO was doing quite well when EQ went live.

EQ people will point out that DAoC came later.

Asheron's Call was more nearly a contemporary in terms of beginning date.

And there are many other "contemporaries" as they still exist today.

Sinneed (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC) changed title Sinneed (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"most popular" - header line.

After reviewing a comment by an anon poster, and again reviewing the "cleaned" numbers on the current MMOGCharts, I am dubious about the "most popular" statement in the header.

I propose to cut the line entirely:

While there is no complete agreement on what constitutes a player (or subscriber), it is generally accepted that EverQuest was, from 2000 until 2004, the most popular MMORPG.

Thoughts? Sinneed (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I was against the removal until I went to the source [2] - it does not appear to have an editorial board and I don't think it really qualifies as a WP:RS. But I do think there should be something added about the popularity or number of players during the early years. There should be something SOMEWHERE that would provide information - SOE shareholder reports providing #'s of accounts or PC Gamer article talking about its place in the market. Anyone else have any ideas?GundamsЯus (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I was against even CHANGING it. I reverted an edit that turned out to appear correct. Then I went to the source and reviewed the counts for Lineage... the very old counts had not been restricted to subscriptions and were *VASTLY* inflated. Finding that they were more reasonable, and not finding any creditable numbers readily available, I started digging a bit more seriously. Part of the problem is that EQ was a *MINISCULE* part of Sony for a long time, so it got short shrift in terms of reporting... it wasn't a blip on the Sony income sheet.Sinneed (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Subscription counts - digging for facts.

Sinneed (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The Section As I Propose It At The Moment

Subscription History

Verant from 1999 to 2001 and SOE from 2001 to January 14, 2004 issued formal statements giving some indications of the number of EQ subscriptions and peak numbers of players online at any given moment. [put ref to Champions of Norrath announce here] However, most of these announcements have been archived and are available only by seeking historical copies through online "internet archives" or other sources.

Accepting both Sony's press releases and the internet archives available today as accurate, these records show a rapid rise in subscriptions to "...more than 225,000..." on November 1, 1999. Sony announced the achievement of 300,000 subscriptions on October 30, 2000. By October 2, 2001, Sony stated that there were "...over 410,000...". On July 29, 2002, Sony announced that there were "...over 430,000..." and that for the 1st time 100,000 had played simultaneously. In preparation for the Fan Faire of 2003, Sony announced on September 25, 2003, that there were "... more than 450,000..." subscriptions.

With that single exception, from March 13, 2003 until the final reference on January 14, 2004, Sony releases that contained numbers referred only to more than 430,000 subscriptions, and/or more than 118,000 simultaneous logins. This leaves the peak and current number of subscriptions for EQ to secondary sources.

The Facts As I Have Found Them

On January 14, 2004 - in the announcement of Champions of Norrath - at http://championsofnorrath.station.sony.com/headset.jsp Sony states "During peak periods, more than 118,000 simultaneous adventurers have explored the fully detailed world of Norrath, filled with monsters, magic, adventure and more. The active global EverQuest subscriber base of more than 430,000 players is comprised of people from 40 different countries." Sinneed (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

---

The following are all at "sonyonline.com/corp/press_releases" (no longer available - see your favorite internet archive). Thank you to Bruce Sterling Woodcock MMOGCHARTS.COM for pointing me in the right direction.

• A December 17, 2003 release uses the same footer as before, though.

• On September 25, 2003 - In "*** MEDIA ADVISORY SEPTEMBER 26th & 27th***": "More than 450,000 gamers from United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, France, Italy, and Australia pay a monthly fee to play EverQuest, the blockbuster hit of the global online gaming world.� EverQuest reaches more than 118,000 simultaneous users during peak hours."

(new data! emphasis mine)

• On August 25, 2003 - In "SONY ONLINE ENTERTAINMENT SHIPS EVERQUEST®: EVOLUTION™ TO RETAIL STORES": "During peak periods, more than 118,000 simultaneous adventurers have explored the fully detailed world of Norrath, filled with monsters, magic, adventure and more. The active global EverQuest subscriber base of more than 430,000 players is comprised of people from 40 different countries including North America, Europe, Asia and Australia."

(at this point, the text in the releases appears to be fixed at 118k and 430k.)

• On May 14, 2003 - In "SONY ONLINE ENTERTAINMENT ANNOUNCES NEW $21.99 MONTHLY SOE ALL ACCESS™ SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE": "The active global EverQuest subscriber base of more than 430,000 players is comprised of people from 40 different countries including North America, Europe, Asia and Australia."

• On March 5, 2003 - In "EVERQUEST CONTINUES EXPONENTIAL GROWTH AFTER FOUR YEARS WITH RECORD SETTING 118,000 SIMULTANEOUS USERS": "a new record of 118,000 simultaneous players" "With more than 430,000 active subscribers"

• On February 12, 2003 - In "SONY ONLINE ENTERTAINMENT BRINGS ONLINE FANTASY PHENOMENON, EVERQUEST, TO THOUSANDS OF EAGER PLAYSTATION®2 GAMERS": "as 430,000 subscribers to PC EverQuest"

• On October 21, 2002 - In "SONY ONLINE ENTERTAINMENT SHIPS EVERQUEST®: THE PLANES OF POWER™": "During peak periods, more than 100,000 simultaneous adventurers"

• On July 29, 2002 - In "EVERQUEST® EXPERIENCES A RECORD NUMBER OF SIMULTANEOUS PLAYERS": "EverQuest currently has more than 430,000 active subscribers" "More than 100,000 EQ Players Swarm Norrath Over Weekend"

(I remember when this happened. Smed was blatting at us to get all our friends to log on so we could hit 100k. I also note that the 430k number is never increased... yet the simultaneous logins does. I speculate wildly that 2 things were happening: there were more subscribers, but Sony under-reported, and "multiboxing" was becoming more common.)

• On July 17 , 2002 - In "EVERQUEST IS COMING TO MAC OS X": "During peak periods, close to 100,000 adventurers and dragon slayers have explored the world of Norrath online, simultaneously."

• On January 23, 2002 - In "Sony Online Entertainment And NCsoft Join Forces To Expand The World Of EverQuest® In Asia": "During peak periods, more than 98,000 adventurers and dragon slayers have explored the world of Norrath simultaneously. EverQuest currently has more than 410,000 subscribers."

• On December 3, 2001 - In "Sony Online Entertainment Takes EverQuest® Players To The Moon With EverQuest: The Shadows Of Luclin™": "more than 400,000 current EverQuest players" "During peak periods, more than 98,000 adventurers and dragon slayers have explored the world of Norrath simultaneously."

• On October 2, 2001 - In "SONY ONLINE ENTERTAINMENT ANNOUNCES EVERQUEST® GAMECARDS NOW AVAILABLE": "over 410,000 subscribers"

• On September 4, 2001 - In "Sony Online Entertainment to Introduce New EverQuest Servers in European Markets": "more than 400,000 members across the world"

• On August 29, 2001 - In "Sony Online Entertainment Announces a New Playable Zone in the World of EverQuest": "During peak periods, more than 98,000 adventurers and dragon slayers have explored the world of Norrath simultaneously. The active global EverQuest subscriber base is comprised of players from various countries throughout the "real" world, including the U.S., England, Canada, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Saudi Arabia, France, Italy and Australia."

• On June 26, 2001 - In "EverQuest®: The Shadows of Luclin™ Game Trailer Now Available at www.everquest.com": "The 400,000 active global EverQuest subscriber base is comprised of players from various countries throughout the "real" world, including the U.S., England, Canada, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Saudi Arabia, France, Italy and Australia." and "During peak periods, more than 96,000 adventurers and dragon slayers have explored the world of Norrath simultaneously."

• On May 7, 2001 - In "Sony Online Entertainment Announces "EverQuest®: Trilogy™"-The First EverQuest® Anthology": "over 375,000 subscribers" and "During peak periods, more than 90,000 adventurers and dragon slayers have explored the world of Norrath simultaneously."

• On April 23, 2001 - In "The Station Membership Base Soars to 10 Million": "more than 370,000 EverQuest subscribers"

• On April 3, 2001 - In "Everquest® Goes Mass Market":"During peak periods, more than 88,000 adventurers and dragon slayers have explored the world of Norrath simultaneously."

• On March 16, 2001 - In "Everquest® Turns Two!" "over 350,000 monthly subscribers" and "85,000 simultaneous users".

---

On the old Verant.com site at "/press_releases.html" (again, use your favorite internet archive):

• On February 6, 2001 - "over 330,000 active subscribers" "During peak periods, over 86,000 adventurers and dragon slayers have explored the EverQuest world simultaneously. The active global EverQuest subscriber base is comprised of players from various countries throughout the real world, including the U.S., England, Canada, Singapore, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, France, Italy and New Zealand."

• October 30, 2000 "EverQuest® Signs 300,000th Subscriber" "During peak periods over 68,000 simultaneous adventurers roam the continents and slay the dragons of Norrath. The active global EverQuest subscriber base is comprised of players from various countries throughout the real world, including the U.S., England, Canada, Singapore, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, France and New Zealand."

• August 1, 2000 - "the more than 270,000 current EverQuest gamers"

• May 1, 2000 - uses the 225K number

• On Nov. 1, 1999 - "The expansion pack will provide the more than 225,000 current EverQuest gamers..."

• On Oct. 18, 1999 - "active subscriber base of more than 150,000 players" "During peak periods, EverQuest adventurers and dragon slayers can form alliances with up to 37,000 other players simultaneously."

(and pure hell it was, too, when there were ANYWHERE NEAR that 37,000 online - I am dubious of it - quite)

Sinneed (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please contribute. :)

What are the player counts, or the _feel_ of the people playing, these days? I'm currently patching, after being away for a long time... for 20 bucks, you can't beat trying it at least for another month. Sullivan.t (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have been away a long time, you should not have to pay to play for June and July. They are having a freebie.

"feel" of people playing would be original research unless it was published in a formal way.

Sinneed (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Socialogical Aspects of MMORPGs

Doesn't this section belong in an MMORPG article? Sinneed (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Protests

I seem to recall a few other organised protests... Wizards in 2001... porting classes in general with the advent of PoK... others. If anyone has any links, I think they might be worth including. Sinneed (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Development History - has a lot of opinion.

Relying heavily on Marks, Robert (2003). Everquest Companion: The Inside Lore of a Gameworld. McGraw-Hill Osborne Media. ISBN 978-0072229035.

1st:

The success of EverQuest has triggered several corporate iterations of its publishing entity which has engendered a popular misconception among newer fans of the series that ownership and creative leadership of franchise passed somehow in 2000 from an independent entity known as Verant into Sony's hands. In reality, EverQuest from its inception has continually been owned by one or other subsidiary of Sony Corporation of America, with John Smedley retaining ultimate control of the product, from his creation of the concept in 1996, to this day. This confusion can be attributed to a shift in Sony's publishing priorities in the U.S. prior to the launch of its Playstation 2 product in 1999.

• I propose to change it rather a lot. The spirit of the lead-in seems good. The author(s) seem to want to convey that while there were companies not fully owned by Sony developing EQ, that both Sony and John Smedley maintained control of EQ at all times. This seems adequately supported by the reference. It appears to me that it might be better to simply say so:

"From John Smedley's initial concept in 1996, throughout various corporate restructurings, Sony has been responsible for and John Smedley has guided the development of EverQuest."

This seems to be adequately addressed in the already-referenced book on this subject, which will need to be cited again. I cannot say the same of the original wording.

Done Sinneed (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

---

2nd: In anticipation of PlayStation's launch Sony Interactive Studios America had made the decision to focus primarily on console titles under the banner 989 Studios while spinning off its sole computer title, EverQuest, which was ready to launch, to a new computer game division named Redeye (renamed Verant Interactive). Executives initially had very low expectations for EverQuest but in 2000, following the surprising continued success and unparalleled profits of EverQuest, Sony reorganized Verant Interactive into Sony Online Entertainment (SOE) with Smedley retaining control of the company.

---

3rd: By 2002 however, a majority of the original EverQuest team, including Brad McQuaid, Steve Clover and Geoffrey Zatkin had left SOE and day-to-day development of new titles in the franchise continues largely in the hands of a new generation of Sony designers.

• I think probably leave this alone, unless someone can find some citations... or take out the "a majority" and substitute perhaps "key members". But it really needs some sourcing. That may be in the cited book, but I don't have my own copy. :(

Sinneed (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC) I decided to shorten this up considerably, instead. Sinneed (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

NO ONE has anything to say or change? Sinneed (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

System requirements need an update

This game seems to have had a massive graphical overhaul since its release; the system requirements should really be reflected in that. I'm not sure if it's restricted to expansion though. Can you play currently on EQ servers with just EQ?Zelphi (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, EQ classic will still run. You can also download additional zones without additional fees. Those zones have different requirements. Expansions also have different requirements. Sinneed (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well that's good to know, but for some reason Sony are advocating system specs that match EQ2, it's not as simplistic as "windows" as we see here. They did nothing to EQ basic though?Zelphi (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Several things changed, but none that I can see needing to be in a Wikipedia article. I don't see a system requirements item in the article. I would be most tempted to remove it, if I did. Further, I don't see the requirement for EQ Classic at all, anywhere obvious on the web. Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia. I have some doubts about the sheer bulk that is devoted to gaming. On the other hand, computer gaming is, especially for the younger groups in our societies now a fairly major form of entertainment. Sinneed (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

SMED, Sony, EQ, and Phil Sandifer

Phil Sandifer, your comment about the origin of the idea for EQ is not germane to the discussion of which company was responsible for EverQuest, nor who oversaw the design and development.

While neither the EQ page nor your talk page are really the right place to discuss the difference between "The original design is credited to Brad McQuaid, Steve Clover, and Bill Trost." and "From John Smedley's initial concept in 1996, throughout various corporate restructurings, Sony has directly or indirectly been responsible for, and John Smedley has guided, the development of EverQuest."

SMED's concept was for a Sony MMORPG. He then went off in search of some.

Brad McQuaid was perhaps the primary creative force behind the game/world that became "EverQuest". The difference between an artist/designer and someone who oversees a development corporation/division/department/etc. may not be immediately apparent, but is very important.

SMED then convinced Sony to fund, blah blah blah, please read the (yes) cited reference for information about the development of the concepts and corporate iterations of EverQuest.

Sinneed (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The separation of the initial sentence from the context and source gives disproportionate weight to Smedley's contributions in a way that is problematic under BLP. Perhaps if the information were merged so it all appeared in the history section and was clearly cited it would help, but the lone sentence isolated from context is a real problem. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"disproportionate weight"... source? It is hard to overstate the person who came up with the idea of having Sony do an online game, convinced a conservative corporation to implement it, found the creative talent, selected among a number of great ideas, led a series of corporate splits, mergers, buyouts, etc. Both good and bad. "unsourced" .... mmmmmkay, I will duplicate the sourcing Sinneed (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I duplicated (very ugly dupe, can't find the syntax I need) the source. Instead of simply deleting, how about you put in what you think is true, since you state this is not accurate. At this point, unless you have something to contribute, I will simply reverse your edits without comment. Further, if your objection is to the SMED reference, instead of sloppily deleting the entire section, perhaps you might simply take the SMED reference out. Sinneed (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As an example, perhaps:

"From John Smedley's initial concept in 1996, throughout various corporate restructurings, Sony has directly or indirectly been responsible for, and John Smedley has guided, the development of EverQuest."

should become

"From the initial concept in 1996, throughout various corporate restructurings, Sony has directly or indirectly been responsible for the development of EverQuest."

If so, however, I feel confident you can produce some source that indicates who Guided The Development of EQ...if there is one... before making such a change.

Sinneed (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Mild humor. In reviewing my notes, above, I mentioned the need to cite the source again in this section. However, then, as now, I did not know how to re-cite something without duplicating the reference. I know it can be done... and I found it. In "<>"greater/less brackets, put:

ref name="whateverlinkname" /

Sinneed (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Everquest Classic

Has any mention been made about the concept, going along with the EQEmu software, of Everquest Classic? It's going to be "under the table" so to speak, and probably against the EULA. I cannot get to the site from work, as the firewall blocks things, but should this be mentioned as an active open beta "emulator" in the proper section? Sullivan.t (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well. Lost my edit. Hmm. Interesting idea. Since the game would require the use of the Sony EQ client, it would violate the EULA. Whether that is a problem or not is a different discussion. I know this would not belong on the EQ page about the Sony game called EQ. Maybe a page of its own? I rather doubt that Wiki would carry such a page, though. Sinneed (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that talks about the emulator? Then we can include a reference to it. If all we have is the emulator itself, that is probably a violation of notability and creeping into WP:original research GundamsЯus (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think that one of the Sony people addressed it on the Sony forums at one point, but this was long ago.Sinneed (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Check out EQClassic.org - I think that's it.Sullivan.t (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Bards, twisting, Melody, and a lot of unsourced statements.

...other movement buff. Bards "cast their spells" by playing a song, and can only play one song at a time. However, an unplanned side effect was that the song's effects lasted for a little while after the bard stopped playing. During this time, the bard could start playing another song, and thus place two effects simultaneously on nearby players. By switching back and forth, they can keep both effects active indefinitely, in a process dubbed "weaving". While unintentional, it turned out to be a popular and challenging skill to develop and thus was not nerfed. Skilled bards ...

I was tempted to just tag a lot of this for sourcing, but... it really needs some sources before it is added. The MELODY ability makes "twisting" (never heard a Bard mention "weaving", but I am old and not up on the newest slang) a great deal simpler. As did /stopsong. (ah the days of 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,1,1,2,2,2("O drat!!"),3,3,4,4,).

If there are sources for all that, my apologies for whacking it out... but... I don't think I am going to be embarrassed this time. Sinneed (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Further, I would like to hear from a current Bard... do Bards still solo-kite well? I knew it was nerfed, but that was after I had leveled out my Bard, and I haven't logged him in since. Sinneed (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A number of bard spells have been nerfed thus they're not really as strong soloers as they used to be.Most notably their area of effect damage spells (they don't affect moving targets only static) and charm ( the rang of charm was reduced to melee range of the mobs). Zmajc (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

---

I also killed this addition because really, EQ is very old and additions should either be unneeded or have citations available:

"Bards can obtain the ability to move even quicker than their songs allow by synergizing the appropriate instrument with their songs. Percussion, wind, brass. Vocal abilities can only be "amplified" by a higher level song. The Fleet of foot ability allows bards to move even faster while synergizing their appropriate instrument,making them the masters of movement."

The wording needs work, once this is sourced. I do know how annoying it is to have a nice addition stricken just because of a lack of a source... especially with as much unsourced material as there is. But the problem must be kept the same or made better, not worse. Sorry. sinneed (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Race and class table?

This seems to be far too much detail. How does this enhance a general-purpose encyclopedia entry? I am going to remove the section, which will need sourcing if it is to stay... and I can't really see the need. I do appreciate the neat table, I am sure that on a gaming wiki, or a "starting new eq characters" EQ fan-site it would be great. I am only dubious about whether it belongs here. I do understand how frustrating it is to enhance an article and have some other editor zap your hard work, and I apologize... but as it is I am sure it does not belong... and even sourced I am unsure it belongs. sinneed (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Legends of Norrath

In 2007 SoE added a in-game trading card game to a couple of their games including Everquest. The game titled "Legends of Norrath" openes in a in game client and while it doesnt interact with EQ you can obtain in game items from "loot cards" you can acquire while playing the card game. The loot cards are mostly : player illusions, mounts, weapon ornaments (they change weapon model), familiars (provide various buffs such as: hp, mana, regen, levitation, etc)

The addition recieved quite mixed response from players claiming SOE basically sells items this way and those (buyable) items have a too big impact in game (some of first loot cards were pretty powerfull). Might be worth adding a subsection for it. Zmajc (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In other media - "similar" - all PoV? Noteworthy? New addition?

Redpen noted that an addition to this section used "similar" which is a matter of opinion, and struck the addition. While this is certainly true, and PoV is to be avoided... I think the addition and the section can stand. I have restored the edit for consideration.

While I am unsure how much value the "in other media" section really adds to a general purpose Encyclopedic article, I do see some value. While these games have not yet reached truly staggering sizes, they are impinging on the "mind" of society at large, if you will, and references to them (and the associated social problems) in general entertainment show that, perhaps even more than the "newsy" press links.

My sense is that if the new addition should not be there, then the section probably needs to go. Perhaps there is some other problem with the addition, and the argument listed is (as all such must be) incomplete.sinneed (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Review

This article often delves into lists, it has somewhat of a lack of sources (that is, the number of sources versus the size of the article), it has trivia, etc. The lists should be discussed in a prose format if possible, which certainly could be done in the expansions section. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, NARH. :) All the best. sinneed (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that lists are an indispensible means of communicating information on this particular topic. Trying to create flow when discussing the various classes in prose form, would, in my opinion, be a tremendously difficult if not impossible task. Vranak (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Killed Complexity section

Easily undone if anyone objects. At the time the game was young, it was unusual for games to have fan/info sites. But that is the norm, now, and not Notable at all. Might be worth a mention in History.sinneed (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Winter's Roar

I think an article on Winter's Roar needs to be made. It was a modded EQ engine and server back in 2004, but was shut down. Can anyone help with sources or screenshots? StevePrutz (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

New article suggestion: Everquest Content & Game Mechanics

Hi,

Before actually making the article, I would like to get some feedback on the idea. I would like to start an article, with extensive information about each class, game mechanics (for example formulas for how much XP killing a monster gives in the game, a very complex thing), content (expansion specific), etc etc.

The idea behind this is that this information is being compiled on a huge number of different sites, in strange threads, etc etc. It is hell to find information, and it is hard to get the facts when different sites has different information.

One Article to Rule Them All (tm), or perhaps a more sound division in for example everquest_classes, Everquest_game_mechanics, would be a nice adition to wiki.

Please advice.

Federicodecara (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, read through the other posts, it would appear as if there is a general trend against such an idea. It clashes with my perception of Wikipedia (which is something like "all the knowlegde in the world, for the world"), I would assume that if somebody needs information, and is willinng to share information, Wikipedia should be the place.

Enlighten me :-)

Federicodecara (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your perception is mistaken. We are, first and foremost, an encyclopedia. Thus, we include only information that is encyclopedic. Sometimes, that includes elements of almanacs and dictionaries, but we are very careful not to indiscriminately include everything that could be called "information" or "knowledge". Your specific proposal is covered by WP:GAMEGUIDE, which makes clear that we aren't particularly interested in providing detailed technical information on how games work. Concepts and design philosophies are welcome, as long as they're reliably sourced, but getting down into the specifics of a game's implementation is outside of our scope. Powers ^T 14:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

For possible inclusion

Director Juan Carlos Pineiro Escoriaza has released a documentary called Second Skin] that "examines people whose lives have been transformed by virtual worlds in online games such as World of Warcraft, Everquest, Everquest II and Second Life. The documentary follows a group of online gamers whose lives are intensely woven together inside and outside the virtual worlds, a couple whose lives have changed since meeting online, and an avid player whose life spins out of control due to his addiction to playing MMOs."

1st, this would need sourcing. 2nd...only the EQ part would be related, needs tighter focus, IMO. I won't revert this out again, but we really have enough unsourced content, I fear.- sinneed (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources are easily found at the article on the film. Powers ^T 12:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

And I am sure an interested editor will one day do so, and craft content to be added to this article based on it. But the above isn't that content.- sinneed (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the sources in the article only mention EQ in a question "Is "Everquest" a harmless distraction or an addictive scourge?" and "An intimate look at people whose lives have become transformed by the virtual worlds in online games such as World of Warcraft, Everquest and Second Life. (World Premiere)". So it turns out they aren't useful here.- sinneed (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How so? Doesn't that confirm that the movie is, in part, about EverQuest players? Powers ^T 17:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Anything about humans is about, in part, EverQuest players. This article is about EverQuest. Correlation does not imply causation may be related.- sinneed (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not following you here. Powers ^T 18:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Trying a different approach: Yes, the movie is, in part, about EverQuest players. This article is not about EverQuest players. It is about EverQuest.

• But remember that you don't need to follow me. You have already pointed out that you can source something from the movie that ties to EQ, and place it in the article. I am not taking it out, even if it is unsourced.

The "games such as" quote does not help, since it is illustrative. It doesn't say "the following games: x,y,z", it says "games such as".

I don't see how the "Is "Everquest" a harmless distraction or an addictive scourge?" helps, that is a teaser. One could as well ask in a headline "Do tomatos cause cancer? Answers at 9!" (real news teaser). It is just a question.- sinneed (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I interpreted that one source differently. Sources such as [3] and [4] make clear that my reading was correct -- that the phrase "games such as" was descriptive, not merely illustrative. WarCry even puts their [5] interview on the subject in their EverQuest section. As for relevance, I think it helps illustrate the importance of the game if its players were among those interviewed for this notable documentary; anyway, as we don't have an article specifically about the players of EverQuest, this is the logical place to cover notable information on that subject. Powers ^T 20:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I see actual information at the Kotaku article... the Hereandnow seems to use the same ambivalent wording. I may have to get that one off Netflix, it sounds interesting. If you get that to stick to the article, I will have to look again at the See-Alsos, maybe they will stick as well.- sinneed (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"Red" vs "Blue"

Under social dynamics, the non-PvP servers were incorrectly listed as being referred to as "green" servers. In fact, they were called "blue" servers due to the player names on those servers being blue in color. Further, the two race war servers, Vallon Zek and Tallon Zek, were merged with Rallos Zek, and that playstyle no longer exists. Not sure how that should be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.252.31 (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't throw out the baby with the bath water, please.

An editor objects that proc came from some other game. Great. Source it and fix it, please. Please avoid wp:deletionism... killing content and source because it is unclear is bad... wp:SOFIXIT.- Sinneed 20:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The text in the article is also more accurate than the source, since it only says that proc arrived at WoW by way of EQ. It comes to EQ from DikuMUD by way of Brad McQuaid, of course, but I can't imagine anybody's ever thought they should write about that. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Re "There, the proc part is gone, but the farm part remains. Happy?" — I imagine you were talking to Sinneed, but for my part, no, not really happy. The text prior to this edit was at least accurate as far as it went; now it just says nothing about proc, which is sad. I mean, I'm as alternately amused and disgusted by MMO people's eagerness to throw out their history (and to say things like "gee nobody knows where the term 'remort' comes from") as the next guy, but just tearing out content isn't the way to address that, I don't think. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Restored the deleted content, added clarify tag.- Sinneed 20:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Refimprove article tag

An editor removed the Refimprove tag. I restored it. While I sympathize with the editor's concern that no one cares and that no one is ever going to provide sources, these are not reasons to remove the tag, and there is no consensus to do so. Does anyone else feel the tag should be removed? I do agree with removing the tags in the body. I did also drop the wp:OR section about the business model. - Sinneed 16:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I certainly understood the impulse to remove it (and agree that it's likely to be there forever) but I also agree that the tag provides a rough assessment for the first-time visitor to the page of how Wikipedia-reliable the information is. It's more useful being there than not, and so I (kind of reluctantly) agree that it should stay. JohnInDC (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you and as I noted in my comment to the person concerned, 'no one is going to fix it' is not a justification for removing tags. I also agree with JohninDC that these sort of tags aren't just useful to tell editors what needs to be fixed, but to tell readers what problems they should expect with an article. Nil Einne (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is. The boilerplates reduce the quality of the article. The rest of the article remains the same, with or without it. So, it only detracts. Do you really think that a 'new visitor' really cares of the description of a Beastlord isn't 100% up-to-date or spot on? Of course not. And if they notice something and are aghast at the shoddy fact-checking, well by God they can fix it themselves! It's just so simple, and I don't see why you guys are being so obtuse on this issue. Vranak (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"The boilerplates reduce the quality of the article." - wp:article tags - tags indicate problems with the article. "So, it only detracts." - no, it does not. Again, see the article tag discussion, if interested.

Beyond your objection to article tags, which does not belong here, would you care to add any reason to remove the tag from this article?- Sinneed 17:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Good heavens no. Just looking at those tags drives me nuts. It's antithetical to the cooperative and trusting goodwill that makes Wikipedia work. Vranak (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, the Wikipedia community does not agree with you. If you would like to sway the community to your point of view, please pursue doing so. Perhaps an wp:RfC after you make your case, perhaps at wp:article tags.- Sinneed 17:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Such a dishonest approach. You can disagree with me, but don't drag in these anonymous masses that supposedly agree with you on general principle. If they really care, then by God they need to speak up, here and now! Because so far it's just a couple of you. Vranak (talk)

Various editors, in various venues, have, as we have here, pointed you to various documents showing you the community wp:consensus. wp:article tags...wp:no personal attacks... wp:verifiability... wp:five pillars... wp: no original research. Not faceless masses... documents that provide guidance you should follow.- Sinneed 18:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, if you want to put down your foot and say 'I must see these tags up', that's fine, I can accept that. Even if I think it's not the best result. But if you want to talk about other people -- don't. They need to come here and speak for themselves. You cannot foist a presumed consensus view on me. I will not have it. Vranak (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"Look, if you want to put down your foot and say" - I don't think anyone who has commented has said anything like this, except you. "You cannot foist a presumed consensus view on me. I will not have it." - No such attempt is being made. Various editors have directed you to various documents.- Sinneed 18:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Well I am glad to see this fruitless argument has dried up. Vranak (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I hear you saying that no, you have no argument for removal except that you disagree with wp:article tags and wp:consensus. Have I missed any argument for removal except that you believe article tags are in and of themselves, article damaging content?- Sinneed 18:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

What am I saying is that I am sick of this business entirely. I have lost interest. I don't believe you can be helped see the truth of this matter. Vranak (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that if the article does not contain enough rigorous citations to meet Wikipedia's general standards, then that Refimprove article tag should be there, regardless of whether or not anybody is ever likely to do anything about it and how it makes the article look. It appears to be the case here but, as I am a relative "newbie" in terms of Wikipedia editing, I don't yet know enough for anybody to place much faith in my opinion on that matter. JoDOe (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

An open challenge

We have this article well-covered with boilerplates, warning of potential inaccuracies. It may be impossible to ever find solid citations so that we can remove the plates. In the meantime -- is there anyone here who really believes that some of this article may be wrong? Or are we just assuming that, because there are no citations? Sinneed? Nil Einne? Anyone? Vranak (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of anything that's wrong. But without citations to reliable sources (which admittedly aren't going to be easy to come by) then the accuracy of the article depends entirely on the continuing oversight of editors who simply know, in personal experience, what's correct and what isn't. Citations to reliable sources make it possible for any editor to police accuracy; and while the citations are visibly lacking here, the absence may not be so obvious to the naive or inexperienced Wikipedia user and I think that the single and fairly unobtrusive template is a useful flag that this article lacks the objective underpinnings of nearly every other one. JohnInDC (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

So, if I can remove the commentary -- you do not have any reason to think that we need these tags. I mean, the rationale is all well and good, but it's totally unconvincing, at least to me. You are basically pandering to an imaginary audience that you think would be ever-so-concerned with these matters. I very much doubt anyone really is. We're being overprotective of a group that doesn't even exist. Vranak (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by an "imaginary audience". Who do you imagine is reading this article? The three or four of us who periodically edit it? Other editors looking for places to slap templates? People who want to learn about Everquest? (This page is, after all, the first non-paid, non-Sony site to come up on a Google search on the word.) Why shouldn't those users be alerted to the flaws - within the Wikipedia universe - of this article? What about *this* article should exempt it from those rules?

I don't mean that to sound as contentious as it does, because I really don't understand. The article is not up to Wikipedia's sourcing standards. Articles like that get templates put on them, as a flag for users and a prompt for editors (and I don't know of any esthetics exception). JohnInDC (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The flaws? What flaws? This is exactly the crux of my point. If anyone has reason to suspect there are flaws, they should address those instead of putting down boilerplates, which is a cop-out. It's a community effort to make this article work, but boilerplates do not constitute 'effort', they are like giving up and walking away. Spraypainting a tree 'this needs to be checked for deadfall'. But it just makes the tree ugly, for no good reason. Same goes for this article. Vranak (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The flaw is not in the substance. The substance is fine. The flaw is that the article is not sourced to Wikipedia standards. (Unless, you think that it is - in which case *that* is the discussion that should be taking place here.) Wikipedia is like a math test - the correct answers aren't enough. You need to show your work too. This article doesn't show its work. JohnInDC (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No. You don't need to show your work. If I believe it's correct, and you believe it's correct, then we don't need the added clutter -- especially since it will likely stay there forever. And I really doubt that anyone is going to see the boilerplate and say, ah yes, I will find a source! Because after all, there are no sources. How could there be? Sony could tweak things and then whatever info is out there becomes irrelevant and out-of-date. Really guys, we need to exercise some common sense here. Nevermind the usual rules of sourcing. This article has different parameters, and that cannot be overlooked.

And I mean really, why on earth would any reputable news source ever discuss the intricacies of each character class, detailed gameplay, and so on? And why do we even need to bother with such things. Between all the people who know EQ inside and out, and who come by this article regularly, we can arrive at a solid article with very few citations. We already have, I would say. Vranak (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess I don't have any problem enduring the minor esthetic affront of a "reference" template for as long as the article is, in fact deficient (or until there's some suitable exception devised to what I have always supposed to be universal Wikipedia policies regarding sourcing and original research). JohnInDC (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, well I've run out of steam on this minor niggle for now. I will probably come back with renewed determination sooner or later though. Vranak (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I must admit, this is the first time I've seen determined opposition to the basic idea behind Wikipedia's quite-clear verifiability policy. Powers ^T 20:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If you look at my early edit history, you will see I had that same problem: I wanted WP to welcome to-me-reasonable wp:OR, since the subject was *obviously* (you may laugh now) important and verifiable sourcing wasn't possible. I have run into this argument a few times since, and sometimes with this level of intensity (partisan articles, religion, schools, race, etc.). There is an entire Internet for wp:OR. Coming to understand that everything that doesn't meet wp:V, and that needs to be published, needs to be published elsewhere is a non-trivial learning experience for some of us. It was for me.- Sinneed 20:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that this topic is very similar to the one above, i.e., "Refimprove article tag", where I have previously stated my opinion that this tag (and, by extension, any similar tags) should be used everywhere applicable, with it appearing to be the case for this article. JoDOe (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know or understand what you dudes are raging about here, but it sounds like the Citation Needed tags? I don't know. At any rate, those will be taken care of shortly. The first one for Keith Parkinson creating 'much of the artwork' was patently false, and thus that part was removed. He did create the box cover art, though. Reference: http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/everquest/credits 98.199.139.8 (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, very much, for working on the CN tags. The article tag is used to note an article that suffers from substantial or pervasive need for sourcing. It is used when tagging every source needed or strongly desirable would disrupt the article (it doesn't take many tags to do so).- Sinneed 20:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

While there appears to be plenty of sources, this article does not make good use of which sentences/paragraphs have derived from which references. Along with that, there appears to be quite a number of game cruft, but that could be another matter to handle. About the sources themselves: some of them are obviously not permitted. One involves another wiki and some others involve unnotable fansites that should not be used as references. The article still needs quite a bit of work before the Refimprove tag can be removed. IAmSasori (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

More details of game dynamics

The article doesn't make clear which gameplay mechanics was available to advance characters, like whether characters had primary attributes, customizable skill set or talent trees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.49.18.203 (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

AA

The article talks about AA but doesn't explain what it is. Could someone elaborate please?159.41.1.23 (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

AA = Alternate Advancement. After characters reached the level cap there was no way to continue developing a character. Thus a scheme for Alternate Advancement introduced an AA Bar much like the level Bar. AA's put points into Attribute stats, new Abilities, and others. The first AA might need 1 AA point, its 2nd level requiring 2 AA points and the 3rd level another 3 AA points. There are also AA Archetype abilities (Class specific) with successive ranks depending where AA are being spent, the character level, expansion pack and how many points have already been spent in pre-requisite AA ability trees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.90.196 (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Launch Date

Everquest: Live (playstation version) launched in 1999. Everquest PC version launched years before that. Please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.184.150.254 (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Your information is incorrect. EQ beta ended in 1999, and the game went live in 1999. This is well-sourced, and correct.Shajure (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Class section

In early February somebody completely cut out the class information, citing WP:GAMEGUIDE. Now, I didn't agree with that rationale, and I restored the information last week, but considering things now, I would say that section could be trimmed down, re-focused, improved, and so on. Just not deleted wholesale. So I just wanted to say that I understand the concerns that editor had about this section, and to invite discussion or more moderate revisions. Vranak (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Please look carefully at WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT again. Note lines such as "But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts. Detailed coverage of specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, character moves, character weight classes, and so on is also considered inappropriate", and points 3, 4, and 6 from the gamecruft page. This article has extremely excessive descriptions of all of the multitudes of classes, including in-depth explanations of each character's traits, perceived roles in combat, and how to play that type of character. This information is not "essential" to understanding the game; it is, in fact, far too much information for the average reader to digest, or even be interested in.

I understand the desire to put every single detail about a game into an article; I wrote my fair share of game cruft when I was younger and less familiar with how Wikipedia should be written. At some point though you have to realize most people don't even remotely care about this much level of detail, especially for such an old game. It's easy to think that every aspect of a game is important and lots of people will want to know every detail, but articles written in this manner end up only being interesting to hardcore players who already know all of these details anyway. It is not the right approach to write articles for people who already know the subject matter; the true purpose of an encyclopedia is to help bring information to people who don't already know the information. An article of this length is frankly daunting to the casual reader, and will almost certainly deter several readers entirely from reading the article for each one who actually reads any of the cruft.

Also keep in mind the sheer volume of the text you have reinserted. I invite you to try to read my old revision of the Starsiege article linked above, and see if you can even trudge through it, and then consider that the classes section of this article is the same length as the entire text of that revision of the Starsiege article.

To breakdown a single random example from the class section here:

"Shadow Knight: a durable tank class; this Warrior/Necromancer hybrid has vampiric and damage-over-time spells. Shadow Knights have the unique ability to Harm Touch (do direct damage) every 72 minutes, the power of which increases in absolute terms but decreases relative to enemies' hit points as a player levels up. Since this class is a hybrid, they must wait longer than the Necromancer to begin receiving spells, and longer yet for the more potent incantations such as Summon Corpse and Feign Death. In most cases the level difference in spell acquirement is +25-30 levels. For example a Necromancer might learn a certain spell at level 4 that a Shadow Knight is unable to learn until level 34. Eventually, Shadow Knights are able to summon a weak skeleton pet, summon players' corpses who are in the same zone as them, and cast the spell Feign Death, similar to but slightly less reliable than the monk's feign death skill. The feign death spell allows the Shadow Knight to function as a "puller" for a group when successfully casting the spell allowing them to clear their aggro list by pretending they are dead. Their necromantic abilities give them great power over the undead, allowing them able to do more damage to those opponents."

Notice this quite flagrantly and completely violates point 6 of the gamecruft policy, forbidding "Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts. Specific point values, achievements and trophies, time-limits, levels, character moves, character weight classes, and so on are considered inappropriate. Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry. " The section on the Shadow Knight discusses many specific spell and exactly how they function, talks about how abilities are earned and at what levels, and describes how to play as that character. For those who haven't already played the game, this is far too much overly specific information, given all at once and out of context, and as a non-player I would be hard pressed to remember it even if I wanted to. Thus I gain no more "essential" understanding of the game than I would from being given a one-or-two-sentence description of what a tank is and being told "there are three tanks".

This type of information does not belong on Wikipedia. If you are passionate about the game and all of the details of it, I suggest you check out a dedicated Everquest wiki (of which there are several easily found through Google). Meanwhile, this Wikipedia article should give a broad overview of gameplay, but little or none of this 20 kilobytes of game-guideish material about the classes. Those who want to know all of the intimate details of the game can seek out external resources such as GameFaqs or the aforementioned EQ wikis. Some guy (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, go ahead and delete that section again. I'll go brush up on policy. Vranak (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I've shortened the section to a brief description of each class category (tank, healer, dps, etc) and linked the categories to the relevant Wikipedia articles regarding those MMO archtypes (for the ones that I could find articles for). I'm sure the description of each class category could be expanded slightly, provided policies are followed, but shouldn't contain descriptions of each of the 16 classes. Some guy (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Caster Classes

The article currently states there are three caster classes, which is incorrect. There are four 'cloth wearing' caster classes: Enchanter, Magician, Necromancer, and Wizard. Shamanistic races do not have a caster class (Barbarian, Troll, Ogre, Vah Shir) and are incidentally the largest playable races ingame. Trolls and Ogres may choose to play as Death Knight, Shaman, Beastlord, or Warrior; Barbarians may choose Warrior, Rogue, Shaman, or Beastlord; Vah Shir may choose Warrior, Rogue, Bard, or Beastlord but not Shaman.

The most dependable tank class is the Ogre Warrior or Shadowknight for their racial innate resistance to stunning blows. An important trait for maintaining 'aggro' on a monster's 'Hate list', keeping it pre-occupied. Mobs attack the closest players in the order of highest on their Hate list first. High direct damage, slows, mobility and resistance debuffs, damage over time and heals all generate Hate.

Players often characterise Beastlords as a Monk-Shaman hybrid (armor restriction, combat style and lower tier shaman spells) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.90.196 (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

EQ Mac forum

The section on the EQ Mac forum is sketchy at best and doesn't belong in the article in its current state. We generally do not include information on third-party materials or resources for a game unless they have notable coverage in notable sources. The section previously had a "reference" which was just a link to the forum, completely unusable as a "source".

Per standard policies on Wikipedia, you need to find some reliable coverage of the forum. For example, an article on a gaming news website, such as GameSpot, 1UP, IGN, etc, discussing the issue with the official forums and mentioning the importance of this third party forum, would be sufficient. Some guy (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I think if you took as hard a look at the rest of the article and its sourcing you'd wind up removing large swaths of it - three-quarters of the history section, for example. I appreciate that Wikipedia's standard policies require reliable coverage for inclusion but if you are going to apply the policy to remove a part of the article that has remained in place for 5 years - following Talk page discussion and consensus - then why not apply it evenhandedly? I am going to restore the link, add a note to the section stating that it needs a source, and then go find one. I think that is also permissible under WP policies. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I located a specific reference concerning the inability of users to log into the official forums and have substituted it for the general link that was present before. I also added a "citation needed" template for the rest of the paragraph, removing the broader "no sources for this section" template. The cited source, and the call for additional citations, are not out of line with the rest of the article's citation quality, and the specificity of the ref eliminates the complaint that it is just spam. I will continue to look for more specific citations but, as with much of the material in the article, finding reliable 3d party sourcing for this now kind of old (in computer gaming terms) material may be difficult. JohnInDC (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the OS X server information and just now added a ref into the official SOE forums in support of the assertion that Macintosh support had largely migrated to a third-party unofficial server. It's indirect support but quite clear - in this particular posting in the official SOE forums, a poster asks SOE how to install and run the new Intel version of the program. (Scroll to the bottom to see this.) That information is not present on the official SOE site (or at least, not easily located), so another poster directed the person to a comprehensive discussion at the unofficial 3d party site. JohnInDC (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Trust me, I am more than willing to remove huge swaths of bad or unsourced material from the article. Anyway, thank you for your cleanup efforts. I will take a look at what you've got. Some guy (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)