Talk:Entropia Universe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not "officially" an MMORPG?[edit]

I'm not sure what that line means in the introductory section. MindArk repeatedly refers to Entropia Universe as an MMORPG on its official site. Does anyone object if that line is simply removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quothz (talk • contribs) 05:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody objects (didn't think anyone would), I did that thing.
It's true, MA does not like to call EU MMORPG, but in the fact it is. And it's a technically an MMORPG, no matter what deverlopers says. You can add a note however, to citation that Entropia isn't called MMORPG (or game) by developers.
Faalagorn?/? 18:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

FPC - (the only) developer and publisher?[edit]

I have some doubt, should we really mention FPC (First Planet Company) as a developer and publisher? I know that this is a group of original creators of Plant Calypso and it's universe previously called MindArk, just as rest.
Right now however they are treated in the same manner like Planet Partners - it's a department of MindArk responsible for developing Plane Calypso (but not the game itself - like engine updates, fixing bugs in engine structure etc).
In my opinion we should rather add "Planet Partners" instead "FPC" to the list, since all of the current and future planet partners are developing the game somewhat - or leave only MindArk, as the creators of the platform.

Faalagorn?/? 18:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Controversy[edit]

The section on "Controversy" was removed as it is a work of original research (WP:OR). It is important that criticism is attributed to reliable, third-party sources (WP:V). If this can be done, fine. Otherwise I'll remove it again in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Marasmusine (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy is needed[edit]

The actual article is nothing more than free advertisement for the company.

The cost to "participate"(play) can be very high. Of course sitting around is free,chatting, also trading is nearly free but the social module is not the game!

Saying it s free to participate, or the real cash economy, are white lies. Cost to participate is probably one of the highest (if not the) in the mmorpg scene.

The real world item value is a myth; Peds are not dollars in any way; and any conversion must be approved...is subject to fees, and can be eventually rejected !! anyway it's going only one way for 90% of players. (Players are unlikely to get anything out)

As a mmorpg (a "real cash" game) there is a lot of things to say about entropia universe.... as a social module, it s not very interesting but anyway both are subject of controversy, and it should be expressed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.64.231.121 (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is very interesting as a social module since the playerbase is more mature than in any other video game (also older, of course). In fact, that is actually a big draw for many people. Just logging in, sweating and chatting with their online friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.86.132 (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Find[edit]

Remove mine at your own risk...I have proof which I am willing to share!

What I have 'no' proof of is a concerted effort of Mindark to deliberately alter the wiki (though there were numerous articles in the Entropia Forum that 'did' link to the occurances; and several in the Entropia Reality website).

Oh yeah...I played for 3 years...satisfied?

I see. As I mentioned above, our policy is to attribute all information to reliable, third-party sources, and to avoid original research (WP:V, WP:OR). This is particularly important in any "controversy" sections. The section in this article is an opinion piece, violating both WP:Neutral point of view and verifiability policies, and therefore I'll remove it. If you want to write an objective "critical reception" section, I would advise taking a balance of negative and positive comments from published sources. Marasmusine (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Find[edit]

Well, apparently, verification of facts have to be proven publicly here. As the facts relating to the matter in question require the private details of individuals to be published I shall both accept the alteration, and further commend the wiki on having such an astute and unbias representative who promotes merely factual and verifiable data be assigned to this space and is willing to devote such time to policing it on behalf of an unrelated organisation.

I hold true to my offers to provide proof under agreed anonymity for personal privacy reasons and will happily accept contact under those conditions. I stipulate this for reasons that will become clear should such contact be attempted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Findelin (talk • contribs) 15:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be considered original research, which is not encouraged.DarkNightWolf (T|C|M) 17:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

I've noticed that some fan-made websites catering for other languages have been making their way into the article. What I was wondering is if I should just delete them? because I know Wikipedia isn't a link index... I don't want to start an edit war or something... DarkNightWolf (T|C) 02:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL is our guideline on external links. It asks us to avoid fan sites and social networking sites. In this case, I think you'd be justified in removing everything except the official link. Marasmusine (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The better reference?[edit]

I'm not sure about the following reference: and in 2010, a virtual space station, a popular destination, sold for $330,000.<ref>[http://www.psfk.com/2010/01/virtual-space-station-sold-for-330000.html Virtual Space Station Sold For $330,000. psfk.com]</ref> The psfk article is refering to Man Spends $330K On In-Game Space Station which is refering to Man buys virtual space station for 330k real dollars which is refering to Crystal Palace - And the winner is.... So would'nt it be good to have the most original article as reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.156.74 (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We use the most reliable secondary source. The Entropia forum post is primary. It's nothing against the original source per se; it's just that we try to focus on information that other publications have already reported. In this case, yes, I think that the citation should be changed to Jostiq. Marasmusine (talk) 09:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Although using a forum the original article Crystal Palace - And the winner is... is obviously editorial content. However, I changed the citation to the joystiq article now. Might change some others too, for example secondary sources reported on the recent CND sale as well.
Don't use forums as sources, the same applies to wikis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.235.218 (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed some paragraphs, as the article was becoming a list of press releases. Remember to use reliable independent sources to establish what is printworthy. Marasmusine (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Entropia Universe landscape.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Entropia Universe landscape.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.[edit]

Just wow. Apologies to whoever's been working on this article, I mean, seriously thanks for your help and all, but the writing here falls far short of WP standards. I can't believe how much this article has gone downhill over the years. I'll fix some of it. But really, Wikipedia is not a magazine or a gaming website. This kind of informal writing is just not appropriate. Eaglizard (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following text:

If you have a limited budget, playing smart is the key, so finding out what the best setup in gear is for what creature is very important. For smaller creatures it is in most cases smarter to play without armor (players call that naked, even though you are not really naked) then with armor because of the decay the armor will have from getting hit. This way you will get killed more often, but using your heal tool will at least give you some skills next to the decay it has from using it where armor just gives you decay.

The general idea is that there is a 90% return rate in Trade Terminal (TT) value from any of the 3 main activities in the game. This number is however based on a long period of time with, in the case of hunting, 1000's of creatures killed and of course playing smart is very important. The other 10% needed to break even will have to come from the other players when you sell your loot to them. It therefore is important to know the market and know what people are willing to pay for your loot.

Probably the only sure way of making money in the game is by trading, BUT, to make money you need money, or you have to start very slow and work your way to the top. To make money trading you have to be smart and be willing to crunch the numbers all the time and play the marked in order to get the best possible deal. This might mean that you have to keep a certain stack of item in your inventory for weeks or months and wait till prices go up again. This then of course is 'dead' money, you cannot use, so having enough money as a buffer is highly advised.

How much does it cost to play: Well, it all depends on you and how much money you have in real life and on how much (if any) of that money you want to spend on a game and how smart you are. One thing you have to do is look at it over a longer period of time, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, but overall it should balance out to around that 90% return.

This is useful information but mostly not WP worthy stuff (WP is not a game guide). Also, this, like everything else, is mostly opinion and completely unsourced. I don't care if you're NeverDie's first mentor, your knowledge of the game is not an adequate reliable source. Eaglizard (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Active player base[edit]

The exact number for this has not been released by MA. The test conducted on the active player base has been the best estimate so far. Bring evidence with a more accurate research before dismissing the current research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.91.172.173 (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I have removed your information because your research is incomplete and based on a personal estimate. Multiple people have already explained this to (I presume) you in your thread on PCF. In that thread starting from the second reply (Thread on PCF), there are explanations why your test or research is based on assumptions and therefor incorrect (and not even close to the estimated number with better test methods based on facts). The current active playerbase has been point of controversy for a few years, the best research based on factual data is provided by EntropiaLife.com, which, if you dont know already, logs all globals in the chat. However, in my opinion, and many others, this number is not exact enough to state in a wikipedia article. Posting your findings in this article is giving false information to the readers of this wiki page. Since we only have estimates, let's not put any numbers there at all.
Addition, your requested "evidence with a more accurate research": I have checked EntropiaLife.com statistics for this month at the time of writing this. Just in hunting alone there are a little less than 3700 unique avatars who had a global, not all active players get a global every month, which means your guestimated 2000 players is not even close to the facts of just hunting, let alone the total of hunting + crafting + mining + guessed avatars that didnt global this month.
Please don't get me wrong, I love that you undertake such "projects" to find out more info, and I hope you keep doing so. But please don't assume a test means it's a fact, tests can be faulty too!
83.81.204.59 (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your concern but I could argue with you on several grounds:
1- through out PCF Planet Calypso Forum There are many statements that back the test. Claims by players that sweaters are ranked 900~1100 which greatly undermines the accuracy of the numbers of Entropia Life [1].
2- The Reseach performed is based on weekly activity while Entrpoia Life data is monthly. It could be argued that a player logging in once a month is not considered an active player.
3- Players have also been able to back this number using estimated CLD (Calypso Land Deed) Payouts
4- Most arguments on the forum against this number are based on statements such as:
"I would guess the active player base is . . ."
"I would estimate the active player base is . . ."
"I think the active player base is . . . "
"based on my experience I'd say the active player base is . . ."


And no one has yet been able to dismiss this number using any sort of scientific method.
5- On the article it was not claimed this number is exact but it was stated that this is the best estimate of current number of active players. Assuming the validity of Entropia Lifes number of globals during the last 30 days, (which I have yet to see the list reported out to public) of approximaitly 3000 we could say that 2200 ( the result of the research) is a good estimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EntropiaUniverse (talk • contribs) 07:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


You can argue all you like sir, but your ways do not stand up to the scientific standards required by one the Entropia Universe community, and two, the WikiPedia article information rules. All you do is assume, assume, assume and then self proclaim your research is the best. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but that's not how research works and it is faulty per definition. research can be conducted based on an assumption of the outcome. Research can never be conducted using assumptions in the starting variables.
In your whole thread of everyone giving arguments against your test, you manage to twist the words in your head and again, assume that an argument is actually in favor of your test. Even when clarified by the original poster of the argument that it is against you and you interpret it wrong. You filter out every argument against you, which are many.
Now onto your points of arguing with me:
1- You failed to read the whole post, you completely missed the part that these sweaters actively hunt with their peds made from sweating. People that hunt will get a global sooner or later, which means they get in the hunting ranking list. This in no way proves anything about the active player base, it only proves your prejudged opinion about sweaters not being active players. It also has no relation whatsoever with the accuracy of EntropiaLife.
2- Again, an assumption. What is an active player base? You seem to assume that an active player is someone who logs on at least once a week and during that time does a great amount of activities. Now to get to the point, fact is that (if you do some googling research) most games measure the active player base in the following way: Active players are all players that have logged in at least once during a time period of a single month, regardless if they did anything in the game or not. So, no, I don't think you can argue that a player logging on at least once a month and getting a global is not an active player, because it fits the generally used rule I just stated.
3- Again, assumptions from your part. Please read the thread quoted by yourself again, see all the valid arguments against you? Try reading them and understanding them please.
4- Again, assumptions. Yes some people like to guess, like you are doing throughout this whole test of yours. But these guessing people are not turning this into a fact and keep it as their most educated guess. Here are some quotes from your research:
"One of the assumptions was:" ([1]
"Assuming 2000 is exact, i'm pretty sure the accuracy would be above 90%." [2]
"We can assume the behavior towards the auction for weekend players is the same as week days." [3]
Everything you did is based on your personal assumptions, not everything other people said.
Nobody has been able to dismiss your number scientifically? Again, EntropiaLife.
5- The point is not that you claim it is exact, it's that you wrongfully claim it to be true and researched, a fact. 2200 versus your, again assumed and made up, 3000 (EntropiaLife as I stated, states almost 3700 for 1 profession!) is 26.66% difference and can in no way be called accurate. Comparing your 2200 versus the actual stated facts by EntropiaLife on hunting players (close to 3700) it's 40.54% difference which is even worse. 26.66% and 40.54% off on your estimates, that's the worst estimate I've ever seen, it's called a guess, not an estimate.
Now on to EntropiaLife, I'm not sure if you understand what it does. EntropiaLife logs globals and hofs from the ingame chat and puts them in a database. True, EntropiaLife is not 100% accurate in logging these globals as sometimes it misses a few. But every single global that has been logged is harvested factual data! EntropiaLife does not make up globals when there aren't any. Which we can conclude that the information provided by EntropiaLife are facts and there are at least 3700 active players per month in hunting alone, it is a fact that this is the ultimate minimum of active players. There could be more, and there are more, because some globals from an unknown avatar might have been missed by the program and again, not all active plyers get a global every month.
I hope you have read this carefully, I will not spend another explanation on you if you do not understand the weight of these arguments.
Now why does your information not fit this wikipedia article? Even if you think your research still stands despite everything I've told you. See this link: Wikipedia:No_original_research
So please for the sake of abiding to WikiPedia's rules, do not add your biased information again, thank you.
83.81.204.59 (talk) 12:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again all I'm seeing are personal Ideas nothing based on facts.
this number you are claiming Entropia life shows, shows how many people have globaled throughout the past 30 days. MA has intentionaly reduced the minimum global size to 10 peds meaning every player out there no matter their skill, gear . . . can global after hunting for a couple of hours. Again I stand my point hunting a couple of hours a month is not called active.
the number 3700 must be multiplied by a factor smaller than 1.
You can argue all you want based on personal thoughts, but until you fail to bring valid data I would suggest not changing this article based on what "you think is correct". — Preceding unsigned comment added by EntropiaUniverse (talk • contribs) 13:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest If you consider your number of 3700*X accurate, find a meaningful way of estimating the X factor and post both numbers on the article, leaving the reader to judge which is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EntropiaUniverse (talk • contribs) 13:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Sir, I said that would be my last reaction towards your inaccurate and delusional defence. I have tried to reason with you, but you don't seem to get it. This is the reason why I've issued an official level 3 warning. Please stop editing the article immediately. Persons like you are not welcome on WikiPedia and ruin good information by stating lies.
Please do not edit the article anymore and do not undo changes. If you still don't get the message and continue, you will be blocked from WikiPedia. Thank you for your cooperation. (83.81.204.59 (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I hope this contributes to the end of this unnecessary discussion, this post contains the actual number of active players which has been leaked from a company meeting in late 2012: http://www.entropiaplanets.com/threads/another-planet-partner-bites-the-dust.9332/page-3#post-60970 And this post specifies what is considered an active player: http://www.entropiaplanets.com/threads/another-planet-partner-bites-the-dust.9332/page-3#post-60979 Nevertheless it's out of question that information coming from these sources or coming from original research can be added to the article due to Wikipedia's policies, which has been pointed out multiple times in this discussion by multiple people. So please simply respect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810C:8140:530:2DE0:9654:E17A:EF67 (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.entropialife.com/

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Entropia Universe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Entropia Universe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Entropia Universe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

A controversy section is desperately needed in this article. Entropia Universe has ruined lives.Awoma (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Entropia_Universe&oldid=1201108741"