These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Fiction

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CCP: Requesting clarification on "canonical status" of in-game Research Data
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Toyo Zaki
Arek'Jaalan Support Initiative
#1 - 2012-01-13 17:56:06 UTC
I was having a conversation in the Arek'Jaalan OOC channel, trying to refer someone with ideas about Sleepers to similar research that had been published on the matter, and this came up:

Quote:
Toyo Zaki > You read any of the Huntress Green work?
AJ Member > it was the one documenting planets?
Toyo Zaki > Yeah
Toyo Zaki > "It was found that life in Anoikis split from life in known space during the dark ages, the time period between the closure of the eve gate and the rebirth of civilization."
AJ Member > yeh, CCP refused it cos it claimed too much
Toyo Zaki > refused it?
Toyo Zaki > What do you mean?
AJ Member > in the radio interview
Toyo Zaki > I'm holding it right now :P (meaning I have the Huntress Green research items in my cargo bay)
AJ Member > they said they couldn't accept it because it claimed far too much
Toyo Zaki > Huntress Green (link to item)
AJ Member > yeh, that's essentially junk now :(


I was under the assumption that when Arek'Jaalan research papers are published, they effectively become canon. This doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusions or theories in them are correct, but that they exist in the game world as valid research and our characters are allowed (even encouraged) to treat them as an object as "real" as a Raven battleship.

I'm bit a confused then, that an AJ member would treat it as "junk"? Could CCP possibly clarify this? From the conversation it almost sounds like the Huntress Green abstract "claimed too much" but was published anyways?

Hopefully it goes without saying that if "any old thing" can be published, then we'd have anarchy, and the whole Arek'Jaalan project would be on shaky ground. I don't actually believe this is the case, but some confirmation would be nice.
Wyke Mossari
Staner Industries
#2 - 2012-01-13 21:46:12 UTC
Toyo Zaki wrote:
This doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusions or theories in them are correct, but that they exist in the game world as valid research and our characters are allowed (even encouraged) to treat them as an object as "real" as a Raven battleship.


That is my understanding.

Toyo Zaki wrote:
I'm bit a confused then, that an AJ member would treat it as "junk"? Could CCP possibly clarify this? From the conversation it almost sounds like the Huntress Green abstract "claimed too much" but was published anyways?


In the same way the research may or may not be accurate, the other researcher is just as entitled to be wrong.
Valerie Valate
Church of The Crimson Saviour
#3 - 2012-01-14 12:58:25 UTC
what radio interview is this ?

Doctor V. Valate, Professor of Archaeology at Kaztropolis Imperial University.
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#4 - 2012-01-14 13:14:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Jowen Datloran
Here you go, Valerie. There are some very interesting things revealed in this interview for Dropbear and Headfirst.

Regarding Huntress Green; After listening to what Dropbear said in the interview I believe the people behind that project originally claimed far too much as proof of facts instead of suggestive evidence. The abstracts released in game are the revised versions that are much more theorizing and that Dropbear has supervised.

My only "beef" with project Huntress Green is that they did not write an abstract for an article but instead wrote the full article on three in game items and nothing on the evelopedia page. This complicates the use of their findings and theories as reference in other projects.

Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online LorebookÂ