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) |
Immortis Vexx
Lupus Draconis Dragehund
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 19:40:00 -
[571] - Quote
I am generally in the boat with the rest of the "omg dont dumb down my module names" group but for a completely different reason. First off, I am good with updating some names and changing things but I also think that what you have chosen is a bit too simplistic. Lets look at the modern brand names of very popular items of which we have a large variety to choose from; in this case, cell phones. Currently i am using an HTC android device running version 2.3.4. Many people have just signed up to buy the Apple iPhone 4s. Then we have the Nokia Lumia running windows platform.The point that I am trying to make here is that we have a wide variety of phones (and knockoffs) and we are generally able to figure out who has what and what kind of stuffs we got running under the hood.
Instead of using "experimental" or "improved" why can't we use the corporations to denote what kind of quality a product is? EVE has TONS of npc corporations that could be used in this fashion. Granted, this would be a total re-work of the meta level system and I don't know that it would be feasible. However, then you could have the corporations provide the various bonuses. "The Ishukone version of the afterburner slightly sacrifices speed, but greatly reduces the CPU usage of the module."
Personally I would like to see the corporations influence more than just who I have standings with, just my two cents though.
Vexx |
Sovai Elaaren
Korriban Confederation
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 00:20:00 -
[572] - Quote
CCP Gnauton wrote:The Meta scheme:
The meta scheme is currently under heavy revision and review. I'll hopefully have something more to report shortly. Please keep the feedback coming; this is the area where your comments have been the most helpful so far.
I'm very glad that you're listening to our feedback, but it's very unfortunate that a change is under heavy review but was implemented anyway (at least in part). Only thing more confusing for players that recently started is having the naming scheme change not once but possibly twice.
At any rate, I'm looking forward to hearing more from you guys on this. |
Hyperion O'Coeus
Null n Void Voice of Void Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 02:38:00 -
[573] - Quote
I don't care about UI Designers. You need to stop making changes to all the names this is stupid and a waste of time. When ever you switch departments or have Designers change departments there is a learning curve. Instead your changing he names for the designers which is causing quite a stir with the gamers. And here I thought the game was for us NOT designers.
You need to stop making name changes, before you provoke a mass exodus. I just spent 48 minutes fitting a ship because you changed names and I had to review all the info. In addition your not telling us in advance or in the patch notes what has been changed to what ...
Old Name = New name
It doesn't make any sense to change Invulnerability Field 1 to Adaptive Invulnerability Field I ... what the hell is the point of that?
You really to need to have more of a conversation with the gamers / users before going forward with the changes. |
Siren mu
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 04:14:00 -
[574] - Quote
GOOD!!! now I feel like a freaking armor tanker every time I look at that adaptive invul field II ... Please stop the useless name change all together Most of the new names aren't even remotely more friendly to new players, and they really just suck. |
Siren mu
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 04:28:00 -
[575] - Quote
And you don't even have an ACTIVE armor hardening module that boosts the overall resistance of ships' armor in the first place... JUST WHY IN THE WORLD should you name an ACTIVE shield hardener "adaptive invulnerability field" ??????? |
Diamonica Norya
University of Caille Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 05:26:00 -
[576] - Quote
Sorry I'm late but my EvE just gotten Dumber as of today~~
Dumberer tomorrow
That's not very respective of the playerbase when you had this many complaints made about the new scheme and yet you still go ahead. CCP Cares |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 20:17:00 -
[577] - Quote
I want my missiles back!!!
CCP: "All these flavours are too confusing for some of the more stupid players (and devs) so everybody needs to gulp down a bottle of bleach, hmmkay?" |
Shade Millith
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 22:45:00 -
[578] - Quote
Quote:Adaptive Invulnerability Field
This doesn't even make SENSE. This isn't an armor mod, and there's nothing confusing about 'Invulnerability Field's', and slapping 'Adaptive' just sounds off.
This is exactly like your attempts to change HAM's. Random, unnecessary name changes for a tiny problem. One that has nothing to do with several of the names you're changing.
Just put down the keyboard and stop changing things for the sake of changing.
What's next? 'Adaptive Damage Control'?
EDIT:
Quote:Explosion Dampening Field -> Explosive Deflection Field
This. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're going through the game, and randomly changing mod names for absolutely no reason.
What are you doing?
Stop changing for the sake of changing. |
Cindy Marco
Expanse Security
60
|
Posted - 2012.03.15 02:39:00 -
[579] - Quote
CCP Gnauton wrote:That being said, it's apparent from the tone and tenor of your dissent that we have quite a few things to reconsider here. After monitoring this thread closely since yesterday and convening this afternoon, we've decided on a few things.
So this was just an empty promise since they went live anyway?
You could at least of told us you just don't care what we think. At least that would have been honest. |
Gallus Niggus
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.15 08:59:00 -
[580] - Quote
LMAO the new mod names are terrible good job Gnauton
edit: yeah i can see why there weren't in the patc hnotes |
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
303
|
Posted - 2012.03.15 13:43:00 -
[581] - Quote
Looks like some changes happened in the Static Data Dump, which haven't made it through to the live?
Still Trauma on EVE, but Scourge in the SDD, for example?
Is there going to be a corrected SDD, or will EVE be updated soon? FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Caladan Rake
Redemptions Manifesto SpaceMonkey's Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 00:27:00 -
[582] - Quote
The fact that these changes were just pushed through despite you guys supposedly putting them on review, is really depressing. Why do you not listen to the players? Can you at least explain it?
Would go some ways to putting some faith back into the community.
Not that I expect to hear anything though. This is an ignored thread now. |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
678
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 00:34:00 -
[583] - Quote
Caladan Rake wrote:The fact that these changes were just pushed through despite you guys supposedly putting them on review, is really depressing. Why do you not listen to the players? Can you at least explain it?
Would go some ways to putting some faith back into the community.
Not that I expect to hear anything though. This is an ignored thread now.
The development process going from requirement gathering, to change definition, to coding, testing, and deployment is a distressingly long one. My guess is that this thread changed the requirements when the process was already in the coding or testing stage -- something that either results in the whole thing being scrapped and developer time being wasted, or an inadequate product being delivered.
In this case, they opted to deliver a half-assed solution rather than having no change at all. I'm not sure why, since it just causes more trouble for 3rd party developers, but they did.
At least, as a software developer, that's the rationale I think is behind it. Rifterlings - Small gang lowsec combat corp specializing in frigates and cruisers (all races, not just Rifters!). US Timezone veterans and newbies alike are welcome to join. Come chat in the "we fly rifters" in-game channel. Free fitted frigates for members! |
ORCACommander
Astral Synthetics
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 03:39:00 -
[584] - Quote
fix my ******* module names now
|
Nikolai Vodkov
Pro Synergy
24
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 17:46:00 -
[585] - Quote
After 7 years of playing this game.. I finally started to get used to and get the hang of most of the crazy item names you guys came up with... AND JUST AS I THOUGHT: "Wow... I can finally understand EVE".... *BAAAAMMMM* New names on everything! FU!!!!!!!! But seriously though, I like the general changes although more flavor in certain places would be good. Maybe Meta 1-4 names for each faction. Anyway too late for that so good job :) Run level 4 missions? Double your profits!Let us loot your missions and give you 45% of it's value.Join channel: "Pro Synergy" to find out more. |
Benteen
Drone A.I. Servicing Inc.
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 20:49:00 -
[586] - Quote
Palovana wrote:All this but you're not fixing the "Trauma"?
You're already changing the hardener names to match damage type so do this:
Trauma Light Missile => Kinetic 'Bloodclaw' Light Missile Mjolnir Rocket => EM 'Gremlin' Rocket etc.
great sugestion but maybe use the words in a slightly different order...
for example "Bloodclaw" Kinetic light missile or "Scourge" Kinetic heavy missile |
Jethro Campbell
Taggart Transdimensional Virtue of Selfishness
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.17 03:14:00 -
[587] - Quote
I approve of dumbing down unimportant stuff like item names.
I want to see more newbs stay in the game longer for me to abuse.
Newb tears taste great.
And station traders spreadsheet-warrior tears are also pretty good. |
TheWarpGhost
1st Steps Academy Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.17 12:35:00 -
[588] - Quote
Sign me up as someone who's happy to see some sanity injected into various aspects of the game, naming included. The fact that people are complaining because their ~7 years~ of effort trying to learn the old system pretty much shows how terrible the previous conventions were. |
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
73
|
Posted - 2012.03.17 14:48:00 -
[589] - Quote
The amount of bitching in this thread is unbelievable... Why would people want obscure names for modules and rant when CCP try doing something about it... HTFU you bittervet ******* and move the **** on! |
Buzzmong
Aliastra Gallente Federation
162
|
Posted - 2012.03.18 17:53:00 -
[590] - Quote
So, I just looked through one of my containers at armour modules.
The change to the second part of the name: ie, Reactive plating being changed to Explosive doesn't make any difference, but the first part, the removal of the actual names in favour of this new unified system?
Be damned if I know what plating is better or worse now at a glance. Before I could look at my active hardeners and know that N-Type are the meta 4 straight away, now? Not a sausage.
If anything, I'm now spending MORE time doing Show Info's so I can look up the meta level of the object.
It's like the Icon change all over again, despite the aim of improved usability, they're actually much worse in reality.
Please CCP, as per the icons, revert the name changes or at least, only prefix the items with the new naming convention and keep their previous names inside the string before stating what the type is, ie: "Upgraded 'N-Type' Explosive Hardener", "Limited 'Radioisotope' EM Hardener". |
|
NorthCrossroad
EVE University Ivy League
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.19 13:55:00 -
[591] - Quote
So many tears... so many long tears.
So I'll be short - CCP, you did a very job on the naming! Thanks a lot. |
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
62
|
Posted - 2012.03.19 22:45:00 -
[592] - Quote
Good to have it resolved, haters will be haters.
Next thing you know people will be complaining about POS blocks, compared with calculating 7 different fuels. Or whatever other archaic problem that was changed recently.
Only suggestion I would have is make sure the name is cool. I think scourge is better sounding then trauma. |
Akrasjel Lanate
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
655
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 08:26:00 -
[593] - Quote
Change of those name has no sense. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
24
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 12:31:00 -
[594] - Quote
Nikolai Vodkov wrote:After 7 years of playing this game.. I finally started to get used to and get the hang of most of the crazy item names you guys came up with...
I too, think new players should have to spend 7 f*cking YEARS to learn the names of the modules in EvE. |
Lukas Rox
Torchwood Archive
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 13:02:00 -
[595] - Quote
Palovana wrote:All this but you're not fixing the "Trauma"?
You're already changing the hardener names to match damage type so do this:
Trauma Light Missile => Kinetic 'Bloodclaw' Light Missile Mjolnir Rocket => EM 'Gremlin' Rocket etc.
I can't find the words to say how simple and ellegant solution this is. Please dear CCP, this is both simple and preserves the flavour of EVE - please consider this as the naming scheme for missiles.
Trauma is only getting us trauma here...
|
Knalldari Testpilot
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 09:19:00 -
[596] - Quote
Djakku wrote:this just makes the game more boring and less- sci fi... this! |
Elder Thorn
Ghosts of War
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 13:44:00 -
[597] - Quote
stop this bullshit... another rename for missiles today? Fine, but then i want all kinetics to be named Terror, not Scourge, Scourge sucks... blablabla
I don't like the new names, but ok, i'll deal with it. But what i hate is, that missiles are getting renamed again... pick one, stay with that, there will always be people who won't like the new name (for example, i don't even like the name Gnauton, so i'd guess most of the names that guy picks won't be in my favour), but srsly, do not rename stuff every few weeks, thats annoying.
|
Debir Achen
EVE University Ivy League
19
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 05:32:00 -
[598] - Quote
Belated, but I still think the missile names have the wrong fix.
Grab your raven and head out into a combat situation. Now right click on your launchers and find the missile that does EM damage, which is of course the one with EM in the name, right? No. It's Mjolnir (why Mjolnir? I think it goes from EM -> lightning -> lightning god's hammer). Just think how much easier it would be if the name actually said "EM". We've now gone from two dozen unintuitive mappings to just 4, but why didn't we go from two dozen unintuitive mappings to a unified intuitive mapping plus flavour text?
Next on the re-work should be laser and hybrid ammo. It's all very well to have 9 or so increments all the way from +60% to -50% and similar scaling damage, but I can only remember 3 or 4, so most ammo types go unused. And don't get me started on projectile ammo! Simply inserting the range or damage modifier (and damage type for projectiles) into the name would make a big difference.
If laser and hybrid ammo needs to have a use for the multiple types, adding a tracking modifier to some types would allow differentiation while keeping the single damage type. Eg: a single mid-range ammo could come in a standard variant and a variant that reduces the damage multiplier for more tracking (or vice versa). |
Rimase
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
13
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 20:30:00 -
[599] - Quote
This is good. All good. All is good here.
I still did prefer Trauma Missiles. (Why CCP no improve Shareholding?):--áCome on, CCP. Make EVE really ******* interesting: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=71032#post71032 |
GavinCapacitor
CaeIum Incognitum
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 06:05:00 -
[600] - Quote
I am all for usability and whatnot (like the session change timer actually showing the time left, rather than just spinning. So fancy!) but I genuinely dislike this.
There was such wonder when I started playing - finding a module that I might use, comparing it, learning all the names. This just sort of ***** all over that. Not to mention the same 4 adjectives are over the *everything*. Not even different adjectives for missile launchers and armor repairers or [the two most dissimilar things you can imagine].
There have been a lot of changes since I started, but honestly nothing that I disliked this much aside from the pay to win / Incarna fiasco.
Don't really know what to say other than for what its worth, I really, really, don't want this.
Wouldn't it be easier to just add a tag at the end of names with the meta level that you could toggle on and off ? Anything to keep the original names. |
|
|
|
|
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 |