Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
ScooterPuff Sr
Galactic BANDITOS
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 01:19:00 -
[301] - Quote
firmly against all the name changes including the ones that have recently happened. i don't care if a noob doesn't know how to ask a question and see whats what. it made sense beforehand. this idea should be thrown out the window and ccp should pretend they never thought about it.
OLE!
|
Elieza
Vanguard Frontiers Intrepid Crossing
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 01:21:00 -
[302] - Quote
Count me as another vote for keeping things the way they have been. One of the best things about EVE is the flavor and uniqueness, if you take that away, it loses something in the translation.
I would actually suggest that you take a moment and consider doing something like other MMOs do. They have tooltips which give you all of the information you want. You already show this information in "show info", you don't need to have it as part of the item name, too. |
ScooterPuff Sr
Galactic BANDITOS
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 01:23:00 -
[303] - Quote
Elieza wrote:Count me as another vote for keeping things the way they have been. One of the best things about EVE is the flavor and uniqueness, if you take that away, it loses something in the translation.
I would actually suggest that you take a moment and consider doing something like other MMOs do. They have tooltips which give you all of the information you want. You already show this information in "show info", you don't need to have it as part of the item name, too. or remove the info tabs. raise the eve bar again ADIOS MY AMIGOS
|
OutCast EG
Very Industrial Corp. Legion of xXDEATHXx
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 01:43:00 -
[304] - Quote
Quote:Standard Missile Launchers have become Light Missile Launchers
Siege Launchers have become Torpedo Launchers Like this.Quote:Heavy Assault Missile Launchers have become Assault Missile Launchers
Assault Missile Launchers have become Light Missile Arrays Don't like this.
Keep up good work anyways! |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3338
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 01:43:00 -
[305] - Quote
Light Missile Battery Launcher?
|
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke
50
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 01:56:00 -
[306] - Quote
So, Blizzard and CCP are going to drop their game-name brands too? And use the same one?
I do not see why Zainou, Genolution and all the others would suddenly use the same brand names. As companies, that would weaken their product. You break the immersion of your gameworld with panic-broadcasts.
If you want to help players navigating the market, teach it PCRE or abbreviations like LSE and MWD. |
Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 01:56:00 -
[307] - Quote
Pallidum Treponema wrote:While I do appreciate that some modules are named in ways that don't necessarily make sense, and are counter intuitive, I will have to agree with the "dumbing down" criticism. EVE, for all its faults, has flavor. It's a game that is complex and rightfully so. In fact, the complexity is what draws many people to the game.
"Standardizing" names might make sense from a new player point of view, but keep in mind that you're also doing this at the expense of your current players. Retaining the names affects new players. Changing the names affect everyone.
You are also facing the risk of going too "bland" with your naming schemes. To be honest, one of the reasons for why I'm sticking to EVE rather than playing another game is the flavor and immersion. I've seen too many space games where equipment names are standardized, and the immersion falls flat. It feels mechanical and automated, and not at all like a living universe that has had years upon years of maturing.
Making this effort to ensure that newer players can easier keep track of equipment is a good thing, but doing it this way is, in my opinion, misdirected. The problem is not in the naming - which will confuse newer players regardless of the names, but instead an accessibility issue.
To understand this, look at other popular MMOs, such as WoW, SW:TOR, Rift etc. One thing they all have in common is item coloration. It doesn't matter what an item is named, you know that the gray stuff is worthless, just sell it to a vendor. The white stuff is useful as a new player, but not for much more. Green stuff, that's where you start getting the good stats, blues and you're getting there, and so on.
So, what do EVE have that compares to this?
Well, we have the "Tech level triangle". You know, the orange thing for T2, Red for T3, green for faction etc. This little triangle tells you, at a glance, how good a piece of equipment is. It's even present in list-mode of your hangars.
Instead of changing things around by standardizing names, and making EVE more bland, how about extending the meta-tags for named items as well? That'd ensure that there are visual ques for newer players, and it'd also help veteran players in quickly finding the right gear. Additionally, add another sort option to item containers, namely sort by meta-level. That makes a lot more sense than an unnecessary standardization of items that are part of EVE core gameplay.
Oh, and while you're at it, change back missile names and add damage type icons to ammo. That makes a lot more sense, and is easier for both new and old players to grasp.
+1 heavy missile of lighting, anyone?
Illustrating what I'm talking about: http://i.imgur.com/1TMtE.jpg
|
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
723
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 01:59:00 -
[308] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote: Yes, keep these (actually, no) Scourge - poison dmg? Bloodclaw - blood? red? explosion or thermal dmg? Cataclysm - wth? Wrath - anger dmg? Bane - death dmg? Thunderbolt - lightning dmg? Widowmaker - instgib dmg?
Yes, lets keep these, because they are supereasy to understand and remember.......
If you go back to the original thread, the suggestion from the players was along the lines of:
Scourge Heavy Missile -> Kinetic 'Scourge' Heavy Missile Bloodclaw Light Missile -> Kinetic 'Bloodclaw' Light Missile Paradise Cruise Missile -> EM 'Paradise' Cruise Missile
Which would have made both sides happy. It would have been more obvious that "Scourge" missiles do Kinetic damage, but you'd still be able to search for "Scourge" and get a very short list. You'd still be able to tell someone "bring me 5k units of Scourge" and not have to worry that they'd bring back the wrong ammo type (vs. having to say "bring me 5k units of Trauma Heavy Missiles"). |
SghnDubh
BattleClinic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 02:01:00 -
[309] - Quote
Not sure if anyone's going to read this post, 16+ pages in, but...
Renaming modules seems like a solution in search of a problem.
|
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
723
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 02:04:00 -
[310] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote:Noes, eventually RRT's will become 1600mm Prototype armour plates. :(
To be honest, the areas where these improvements will be most advantageous will be the armour hardeners and reflective plating; I can never remember whether the voltaic is better than the nanite.
A middle ground might be:
Meta 0 - plain old name Meta 1 - plain old name + upgraded Meta 2 - plain old name + improved Meta 3 - the existing fancy names Meta 4 - the existing fancy and unique and memorable names
Meta 0: Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane I Meta 1: Upgraded Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane I Meta 2: Improved Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane I Meta 3: Radioisotope Adaptive Nano Membrane I Meta 4: N-Type Adaptive Nano Membrane I
For the younger players, this means that if they see "Upgraded" or "Improved" (or some other standard attribute) that they can just remember "oh, that's meta 1 or 2, slightly better then the base unit". The more flavorful names stick around for the version that matter (which are the Meta 3/4).
|
|
Galphii
Furnulum pani nolo THE SPACE P0LICE
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 02:05:00 -
[311] - Quote
I applaud this continued effort to have fitting names make more sense, especially the 'heavy assault/assault launcher' clusfterf*** that has been driving people crazy ever since they were introduced.
And anyone that hates these changes is simply bitter and annoyed that because they were forced to learn the ridiculous old naming system, other new players should have to suffer as well. These changes will help newer players get a grasp of the game with greater ease, and that's a good thing for EvE in general. |
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
71
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 02:05:00 -
[312] - Quote
Some changes are good
Some changes are bad
Your changes are stupid
You're causing more confusion than you attempt to prevent |
Szilardis
Phoibe Enterprises
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 02:09:00 -
[313] - Quote
Pallidum Treponema wrote:
This is awesome! |
Silence 133
EVE University Ivy League
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 02:09:00 -
[314] - Quote
Thank you for this, I never quite got the hang of all those afterburner names and what size they were. |
Ajita al Tchar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
87
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 02:18:00 -
[315] - Quote
JamesCLK wrote:Welp, I feel a bit bad for quoting myself on a similar topic for the third time; but seeing as CCP is actually reading the thread, I figure I should probably also paste my suggestion in the official blogthread. JamesCLK wrote:This is why we need search tags.
That way modules can be named whatever [the frack] CCP wants and we'll still find all launchers when we search for 'launcher'.
To clarify, tags would be an array of words (strings/chars) that is separate from the name and which are defined by relevancy. Eg. the tag 'Propulsion' would be anything under the propulsion module tree; hardener is all shield and armor hardeners; explosive is anything that either deals or protects from explosive, etc...
By searching for multiple tags, you can narrow down the search. Eg: 'armour hardener explosive meta3' would return just the meta 3 explosive armour hardener. 'armour hardener meta3' would return all meta 3 armour hardeners. The order of the tags and capitilization in the search wouldn't matter. Also allows you to define search queries based on terms such as meta, tech, gun size (eg. Large/Medium/Small) or weapon type (hybrid, projectile, laser, launcher). Thoughts?
I also had a similar idea. TBH I think it's a little... weak that the current search mechanic relies entirely on the string of the name and doesn't have anything like what's outlined below. Obviously, a very very basic regexp (the kind that just matches on alphanumeric chars, whitespaces, and a few other characters; no *, + etc, although something better now exists for asset searches...) is a lot easier to implement, but come on. Tech progresses, conventions and expectations change, it's time to step it up and implement a more elegant solution that provides the user with much more powerful tools. Update the names (but don't smash their originality, RP value, etc). Update the way we search for stuff. Fix the damn Neocom. Well, I'll stop there, but yeah, this would go a long way toward providing a way nicer experience for all users, new and old. |
Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 02:18:00 -
[316] - Quote
Szilardis wrote:Pallidum Treponema wrote: This is awesome!
Thanks. All that's needed besides this is an option to sort by meta-level, and the ability to use the search box for item type.
If I type in "Afterburner", I want all afterburners, regardless of name. |
Roh Voleto
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
101
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 02:19:00 -
[317] - Quote
Wouldn't "Light Missile Battery" or "Light Missile Cluster" be more appropriate than "Light Missile Array"? |
Debir Achen
EVE University Ivy League
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 02:52:00 -
[318] - Quote
I think we're confusing "Streamlining" (removing excess bits to make things work more smoothly) and "Homogenising" (removing excess bits so everything looks the same). I don't see the streamlining here; just making things more bland.
Do you know how I solve the "meta level" issue? I use Pyfa. How does that help? Because Pyfa sorts the modules according to meta level! Do this - in show info variations, market, and "compare" - and add a little "1" to "4" icon on the corner of each meta-level module (like the existing "II", "III", and faction icons) and most of the problems go away, without sacrificing any flavour.
Instead, we add four generic adjectives that still don't sort right and aren't hierarchical in any meaningful manner.
(Caveat: people say "prototype" is the same as "experimental". That's only partly true. "Prototype" means "first of the type". The "prototype" of something new is potentially wow and better than what already exists. The "prototype" of something existing is old and has been superseded.)
If we must flatten the names, my suggestion was "Beta", "Enhanced", "Improved", "Upgraded" (or "Ultimate"). Like other similar suggestions, it sorts correctly by alphabet. They're still arbitrary, but at least there's an order.
In among all this, we're missing some key issues with missile launchers. There's this standardised nomenclature where Light / Medium / Heavy maps to Frigate / Cruiser / BS. Except where it doesn't. Missiles are one example: we have light / standard -> heavy -> cruise & siege / torpedo. And there are also the "Medium" and "Heavy" lasers. If we're going to standardise launchers, perhaps we could move missiles onto the standard size keywords?
(Yeah, I know that most of this has been said before, but consider this a "dislike" vote, if you will. Or a vote for "real problem, really misguided solution") |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Tactical Invader Syndicate
205
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 03:14:00 -
[319] - Quote
"Beta", "Enhanced", "Improved", "Upgraded" (or "Ultimate"). Is better then the meta sorting that we have now. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
40
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 03:24:00 -
[320] - Quote
Debir Achen wrote:I think we're confusing "Streamlining" (removing excess bits to make things work more smoothly) and "Homogenising" (removing excess bits so everything looks the same). I don't see the streamlining here; just making things more bland. Do you know how I solve the "meta level" issue? I use Pyfa. How does that help? Because Pyfa sorts the modules according to meta level! Do this - in show info variations, market, and "compare" - and add a little "1" to "4" icon on the corner of each meta-level module (like the existing "II", "III", and faction icons) and most of the problems go away, without sacrificing any flavour. Instead, we add four generic adjectives that still don't sort right and aren't hierarchical in any meaningful manner. (Caveat: people say "prototype" is the same as "experimental". That's only partly true. "Prototype" means "first of the type". The "prototype" of something new is potentially wow and better than what already exists. The "prototype" of something existing is old and has been superseded.) If we must flatten the names, my suggestion was "Beta", "Enhanced", "Improved", "Upgraded" (or "Ultimate"). Like other similar suggestions, it sorts correctly by alphabet. They're still arbitrary, but at least there's an order. In among all this, we're missing some key issues with missile launchers. There's this standardised nomenclature where Light / Medium / Heavy maps to Frigate / Cruiser / BS. Except where it doesn't. Missiles are one example: we have light / standard -> heavy -> cruise & siege / torpedo. And there are also the "Medium" and "Heavy" lasers. If we're going to standardise launchers, perhaps we could move missiles onto the standard size keywords? (Yeah, I know that most of this has been said before, but consider this a "dislike" vote, if you will. Or a vote for "real problem, really misguided solution") Not sure, upgraded sounds to weak to be the top dog. Like the idea of meta names being in alphabetical order. Prototype > Upgraded IMHO. Ultimate is a bit too much.
Either way the complete removal of flavor from the names seems cosmetically and immersively wrong.
Another personal opinion: "Medium" as a size term also feels weak as a descriptive term. Blasters, Lasers and missiles at the cruiser level all designate Heavy as a cruiser class mod, and the rest are named by caliber without any size description. Not sure how to reconcile it to the rest of the mods though. |
|
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
769
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 03:29:00 -
[321] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Hey dudes!
Thanks for the feedback. It seems like the implants are being pretty well received (under the circumstances) but the missiles not so much. We'll sit down in the morning and look at the possible solutions. Thanks for posting!
Be sure to post what you guys talked about.
More communication = more happy players
Edit - 3 snipes in 1 forum thread hell yea. |
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
258
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 03:36:00 -
[322] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Hey dudes!
Thanks for the feedback. It seems like the implants are being pretty well received (under the circumstances) but the missiles not so much. We'll sit down in the morning and look at the possible solutions. Thanks for posting! In case this hasn't been mentioned before, please don't forget about the modules, and especially the propulsion modules whose names were generified in one of the previous patches.
Thanks. |
Killian Skoff
Noob Fight Club Reckless Chavs
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 03:48:00 -
[323] - Quote
Every device had unique name during last 9 years and now CCP decided to rename it. It's a good idea? What's good in it? |
Jenn Makanen
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
165
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 03:59:00 -
[324] - Quote
By the looks of Sisi, they're playing with the names \o/
Prototype 'Arbalast' Assault Missile Launcher
Limited 'Limos' Rapid Light Missile Launcher
And as I have an eye for a good market, I'll be over in the corner here, selling smelling salts. |
Tahna Rouspel
BWE Special Forces
79
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 04:00:00 -
[325] - Quote
I think the name changes are a good thing. It's nice to have some flavour text, but not when it sacrifices efficiency. |
Arekhon
Unknown Soldiers RED.Legion
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 04:53:00 -
[326] - Quote
Tahna Rouspel wrote:I think the name changes are a good thing. It's nice to have some flavour text, but not when it sacrifices efficiency.
how does this add "flavour"? all it does is dumb the game down and make it more "bland"!! the module names made EVE stand out as more of a Sci-Fi game. now it will just seem like a "game" with cool ships.
hey put a medium 'Ghoul' energy vampire on there or hey put a limited energy vampire on there
what sounds better? EXACTLY |
Gevlin
EXPCS Corp SpaceMonkey's Alliance
110
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 05:29:00 -
[327] - Quote
Executive Summary Good direction... Go for it
Wall of text justification insert 5490 Characters of dialog will never read. and for the few that do, they will never get the full of the idea I am talking about as my gramer and spelling sucks so much !
I agree with several people: CCP needs to focus most of eve's recources on FIS, but the development of WIS still needs to continue, just as a slower and more efficient pace. In eve I wish to be more than just a machine. |
sever ing
Worms United
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 05:44:00 -
[328] - Quote
-Please, do not change the name of some iconic modules... The meta target painters come to mind !
-The proposed change do make sense, although I feel it is just change for the sake of change, without any need. It may help new player, and old player will be unhappy for a week and then adapt (webmaster of killboards and other tools will spend the week crying, but that's not unusual). But I feel it may destroy the feeling of a 'real', grown universe with variety and replace it with spreadsheet itemization. No soul, no reality. As an example, when I go shopping, I don't see row and row of: standart soup, green, 500ml bio soup, green, 500 ml light soup, green, 500ml quality soup, green, 500ml standart cookie, chocolate bio cookie, chocolate light cookie, chocolate quality cookie, chocolate.
-If you must, however, and speaking as a non-english native user, Meta Level 1: Upgraded Meta Level 2: Limited Meta Level 3: Experimental Meta Level 4: Prototype make little sense. limited don't sound better than upgraded, and what is the difference between experimental and prototype ?
-The script name change, however, is excellent and much appreciated !
Sever Ing |
Alexei Orlov
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 06:18:00 -
[329] - Quote
So, how many years will it take for new players googling "assault missile launcher" to stop getting confusing answers? The largest base of information for learning about the game comes from outside of the game. When you're done with all these changes how much of a disconnect will there be? How many contradictions will there be and for how many years before they finally filter out? |
Debir Achen
EVE University Ivy League
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 06:39:00 -
[330] - Quote
An alternative mechanism: add a "summary" or "description" field to each item. This field would show up on verbose views and as a sub-title in 'show info'. This could be something like "Missile Launcher Heavy Meta-4", which would provide a canonical description, be included in searches, and provide an accurate search order.
Though I still want the meta-level to show up on icons, and have ever since I discovered meta-levels and that T2 and faction items had icons. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |