Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 46 post(s) |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
223
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 16:03:00 -
[61] - Quote
While we are discussing metas, can we change the meta of prop mods so that they are all the same names for the highest existing meta? Its not a big deal, but its an annoyance every time I have to search the market for a prop mod
Ie, the best meta frig mwd is limited, but for 10mn sizes, its experimental, and for 100mn its prototype. |
Bubanni
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
419
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 16:13:00 -
[62] - Quote
FoxFour, what if meta number was added to item icons? :) + your suggested name changes? no one would ever be in doubt about what is better than what...? Christmas wish list https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134275 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934 |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
310
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 16:14:00 -
[63] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:While we are discussing metas, can we change the meta of prop mods so that they are all the same names for the highest existing meta? Its not a big deal, but its an annoyance every time I have to search the market for a prop mod
Ie, the best meta frig mwd is limited, but for 10mn sizes, its experimental, and for 100mn its prototype.
ABs and MWDs were the first renamed modules, and this was THE reason why people disliked the change I believe, because at first glance the renaming didn't change much at all... An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
223
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 16:17:00 -
[64] - Quote
Bubanni wrote:FoxFour, what if meta number was added to item icons? :) + your suggested name changes? no one would ever be in doubt about what is better than what...?
How about in the corner where other mods have the t2/faction/deadspace/storyline indicator, meta mods have green dots or something, corresponding to the meta level. |
Murashu
Phoibe Enterprises
57
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 16:18:00 -
[65] - Quote
The new module names (limited, experimental, prototype) still make no sense to me as far as explaining how one is slightly better than the other. Please explain to me how a new or old player should know that a limited item has better stats than an experimental item?
I find myself searching the attibutes page looking for the meta level more now than ever before
If you really want to make this simple for us to understand and stop trying to confuse us with each new expansion go with something simple.
Meta 1 - Small Pulse Laser Meta 2 - Medium Pulse Laser Meta 5 - Large Pulse Laser Meta 1 - 10mn Afterburner Meta 6 - 100mn Microwarp Drive
so on and so on. |
Luba Cibre
Global Song Setup
182
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 16:22:00 -
[66] - Quote
Don't use this generic **** for the guns. You're destroying alot of flavor for basically nothing valuable. "Nothing essential happens in the absence of noise."-á |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
310
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 16:22:00 -
[67] - Quote
Murashu wrote:The new module names (limited, experimental, prototype) still make no sense to me as far as explaining how one is slightly better than the other. Please explain to me how a new or old player should know that a limited item has better stats than an experimental item? I find myself searching the attibutes page looking for the meta level more now than ever before If you really want to make this simple for us to understand and stop trying to confuse us with each new expansion go with something simple. Meta 1 - Small Pulse Laser Meta 2 - Medium Pulse Laser Meta 5 - Large Pulse Laser Meta 1 - 10mn Afterburner Meta 6 - 100mn Microwarp Drive so on and so on.
You're indeed totally confused on what meta levels are.
An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Axl Borlara
T.R.I.A.D Ushra'Khan
46
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 16:30:00 -
[68] - Quote
I don't have a complete answer, but so far I have a naming scheme like this:
Size Meta-word rest-of-name
Size is what slot it fits. ie small, medium, large. Meta-word is the word describing meta1-4 (Upgraded, Limited, Experimental, Prototype)
Definitely change the icons to include a different colour corner with 1-4 in it, as mentioned above. The standard meta 0 icon would have no corner.
The meta words definitely need to be changed, but as the dev said, it probably makes sense to get everything consistent and then fix the meta words to make sense. |
Kraschyn Thek'athor
Marquie-X Corp Ewoks
2
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 16:41:00 -
[69] - Quote
I would go into an other way.
Currently there are three Small Lasers, Gatling, Dual, Medium.
- First of all, all these Lasers should have the Tag "Light", since they are small weapons.
- Then I would go away from the technical Modal, Anode.... Use Eve Company Names. Like Carthum, Viziam.... In Case of Amarr, we could even use the ruling families. I think it is far more immersion to use stuff that caries the Name of the producer.
- The Meta Level should be used as an Version Number like in good old "Elite". And for honoring the Grandfather of all Spaceship Combat, let's use "MK..."
- The Number of barrels should be in the name.
Small Viziam Beam Laser MK I. Small Viziam Beam Laser MK II. Small Viziam Beam Laser MK III. Small Viziam Beam Laser MK IV. Small Viziam Beam Laser MK V.
Small Carthum Dual-Beam Laser MK I Small Carthum Dual-Beam Laser MK II ....
After Meta V it continues with Military Names, since this Weapons come from LP-Stores.
After that a player has just to know what stat-specialties a "Company Weapon" has, the rest of Information is in the Name, Size, Type and Meta Level.
If there is a Company missing, reorganize an current Company or gift us with a handful new Stations or Station changes.
|
PinkKnife
Noir. Academy Noir. Mercenary Group
189
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 16:50:00 -
[70] - Quote
I don't mind the longer names, they aren't hard to get the handle on after a bit, but for christ's sake fix the illogical stuff.
Medium Pulse Laser IIs are a small laser? what?
Fix that before you fix anything else. |
|
Tanaka Aiko
ICE is Coming to EVE Goonswarm Federation
105
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 17:40:00 -
[71] - Quote
i'm still lost when i need to choose the good 1mn mwd... the name are not clear at all for me on which one is the better... |
dethleffs
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
46
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 17:45:00 -
[72] - Quote
Logical names are cool and all, just don't make it too bland... I don't want any
You where killed because of Recon, Force, Caldari. |
vyshnegradsky
MNU Operations Luna Sanguinem
7
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 17:49:00 -
[73] - Quote
I think the changes would be good, but instead of say, updated small Gatling pulse laser, small Gatling pulse laser would sound better. Does anyone else agree? |
Lord BryanII
5
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 17:50:00 -
[74] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=962847#post962847
tons of ideas here |
Jovran
Collosal Failure
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 17:58:00 -
[75] - Quote
I like the proposed change but I would make one important change. Place the size descriptor before the meta level descriptor.
Instead of "prototype small gatling pulse laser i", go with "small prototype gatling pulse laser i"
The size descriptor is more important than meta level at first glance. |
Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
26
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 18:00:00 -
[76] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:Because to be honest the more you guys agree on that the more weight it will have when we talk internally about it. For example right now we are debating if consistency is better then... well better meta descriptors and possibly doing the weapons in a new fashion. So please keep talking about it and let us know what you think. Just please, please, PLEASE don't change my target painters to the new system. They're too awesome to be confined by such a limited scheme! (*goes back to fitting PWNAGE*) |
Kasutra
Tailor Company IMPERIAL LEGI0N
61
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 18:07:00 -
[77] - Quote
Bubanni wrote:FoxFour, what if meta number was added to item icons? :) + your suggested name changes? no one would ever be in doubt about what is better than what...? This would immediately make a load of naming issues redundant. :O
I have thought about this for many seconds, and think it is an awesome idea. You should do it. |
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
343
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 18:15:00 -
[78] - Quote
Jarin Arenos wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Because to be honest the more you guys agree on that the more weight it will have when we talk internally about it. For example right now we are debating if consistency is better then... well better meta descriptors and possibly doing the weapons in a new fashion. So please keep talking about it and let us know what you think. Just please, please, PLEASE don't change my target painters to the new system. They're too awesome to be confined by such a limited scheme! (*goes back to fitting PWNAGE*)
Target painters are NOT getting touched. Ever. Content Designer | Team Five 0 @regnerBA |
|
Sphit Ker
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
112
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 18:20:00 -
[79] - Quote
hmm. If I may grossly simplify this, then I will. There are laser turrets, then there is weighted and multiplied ones.
Multiplied turrets (quads, dual etc) favours tracking, ROF and fitting reqs in trade of alpha, DPS and range.
Weighted turrets (light, medium, heavy, mega etc) favours DPS, alpha and range in trade of ROF, tracking and heavy fitting reqs.
Meta 1 through 4 nomenclature is largely pointless to fiddle with, I say. It is what it is and that is well enough.
Silly exceptions like "Gatling" and "Tachyon" can be left alone as they have an identity of their own. What needs to be dealt with are the likes of "quad light laser" which means... all at once? It bears the mark of weighted and multiplied at once. It also implies it is a small turret yet it really is a medium one. WTF does it mean. Rename those as quad medium beams. Done. Feel free to leave the snowflakes alone.
Tachyons means something; they are tachies and are kick ass while taking names since forever. Gatling pulses are just that. Best tracking of laser there is. Nobody cares for those as they don't really deliver anything worth bothering with. Focused are sort of the same. I guess it's alright to rename as dual mediums pulse/beam? |
Sun Win
Kill It With Fire
44
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 18:22:00 -
[80] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:Bloodpetal wrote: With all due respect, then what are you looking an opinion on? Because looks like you're just testing how much blow back there will be and a lot less concerned about input on the naming schemes.
Also, as you did on the missile platforms you kept the "flavor" text.
Prototype 'Arbalest' Heavy Missile Launcher I.
So, it's not like you haven't already messed with your own scheme by incorporating the more interesting old designators as compromises to the situation. You've acknowledged by your own actions that the lack of interesting designators is a negative step and done design compromises to work with it even when it blatantly broke the schemes simplicity.
Because to be honest the more you guys agree on that the more weight it will have when we talk internally about it. For example right now we are debating if consistency is better then... well better meta descriptors and possibly doing the weapons in a new fashion. So please keep talking about it and let us know what you think.
I think that generally these changes are amazing as far as making searching the market more sane, and making it more understandable when you are paging through things to try to figure out what all these modules do. The mental load of mastering the naming of all the current modules is insane and I just spend a lot of time on the 'variations' tab of show info.
However, I also think that we'd lose a lot of flavour if everything went to the prop mod naming conventions for meta levels. So here's the compromise I think you should consider:
Each module class (within reason) gets its own flavourful standardized meta naming convention. So prop mods do "upgraded", 'experimental" etc but lasers get some other meta convention, rails get another one, projectiles another, missiles another, hybrids another. 5 meta classes for 5 weapons systems isn't that hard to master and will keep the world a little more flavourful.
Also: add meta levels to the icons. |
|
Sphit Ker
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
112
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 18:28:00 -
[81] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote: and fix the goddamn "limited" it sounds like "this is a bad thing, dont use it !!"
True.. true... therefore limited = crappy and boring meta 1 nobody cares for? It's "limited", right? |
Sun Win
Kill It With Fire
44
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 18:31:00 -
[82] - Quote
Crassus Detlator wrote:Also, I believe that the $size should always be the first item on the name, which would also make for sorting on the inventory and market for better and simpler distinction betweet weapons (and other modules):
- Small Gatling Pulse Laser I
- Small Experimental Gatling Pulse Laser I
- Small Limited Gatling Pulse Laser I
- Small Prototype Gatling Pulse Laser I
- Small Upgraded Gatling Pulse Laser I
- Small Gatling Pulse Laser II
At first I agreed with this, but then I realized that it would break market searches.
When I want a gun for my Punisher, I wanna search for "Small Gatling Pulse" and have it pull all the meta levels. With your proposed tweak, I wouldn't be able to do that because there are :words: between small and gatling. |
Sphit Ker
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
112
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 18:41:00 -
[83] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote: (...) why shouldn't lasers carry their wattage in the name?
This can "take" for as long as you stick to a scale people are already used to. As in, meg, gig and tera. Small, medium and large.
Just saying. |
Reticle
Sight Picture
1
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 18:42:00 -
[84] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:Jarin Arenos wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Because to be honest the more you guys agree on that the more weight it will have when we talk internally about it. For example right now we are debating if consistency is better then... well better meta descriptors and possibly doing the weapons in a new fashion. So please keep talking about it and let us know what you think. Just please, please, PLEASE don't change my target painters to the new system. They're too awesome to be confined by such a limited scheme! (*goes back to fitting PWNAGE*) Target painters are NOT getting touched. Ever. That makes no sense. Why rename turret weapons but not other mods? The entire naming system is a joke. You're going to fix some, but not all? Why fix ANY of them? Nothing was broken, just confusing. If you're not going to address the undelrying root of the confusion, why waste the time and resources? Get to work on the UI already.
So here's my updated feedback: do nothing. Direct your efforts to something worthwhile. When will CCP sit down and think of the game in its entirety, rather than this piecemeal thing they've had going? |
Dorian Tormak
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
60
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 18:45:00 -
[85] - Quote
Reticle wrote: 2. It should be as short as possible.
No, it should be as 'realistic' as possible. Eve is a massive universe and the idea that there should be only 5 or so simple types of standard-issue blasters all conforming to a similar naming scheme is ridiculous. I thought it was cool the way everything had really long, complicated names in which they sometimes used forgotten, archaic words because it emitted the feeling of a large world with many types of weaponry created by many types of corporations, which is the way it should be. Dumbing it down like this reminds me of the transition from Morrowind to Oblivion to Skyrim where Bethesda has kept dumbing it down and making less and less types of weaponry and using simpler names. It is wrong.
What they should be doing is creating and adding more types of weaponry, more types of ships, and more ship customization. That should be the goal. Why would you even think about changing the names so they are simpler? Who actually cares about that? Yo |
Fleet Warpsujarento
Caldari's Pride - Factional Warfare Cadet School
149
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 18:47:00 -
[86] - Quote
To quote Machiavelli: "Hence it is to be remarked that, in seizing a state, the usurper ought to examine closely into all those injuries which it is necessary for him to inflict, and to do them all at one stroke so as not to have to repeat them daily; and thus by not unsettling men he will be able to reassure them, and win them to himself by benefits. He who does otherwise, either from timidity or evil advice, is always compelled to keep the knife in his hand; neither can he rely on his subjects, nor can they attach themselves to him, owing to their continued and repeated wrongs. For injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less, they offend less; benefits ought to be given little by little, so that the flavour of them may last longer."
Basically what CCP should do is figure out all the name changes they want to make and then implement them all at once. Within a couple of weeks we'll all get over it and never have to worry about it again. What they're doing now is pushing in one change at a time and annoying people each time. Better to change it all at once and be done with it. |
Jace Errata
Lawlz Brawlz
249
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 18:50:00 -
[87] - Quote
Dorian Tormak wrote:Reticle wrote: 2. It should be as short as possible.
No, it should be as 'realistic' as possible. Eve is a massive universe and the idea that there should be only 5 or so simple types of standard-issue blasters all conforming to a similar naming scheme is ridiculous. I thought it was cool the way everything had really long, complicated names in which they sometimes used forgotten, archaic words because it emitted the feeling of a large world with many types of weaponry created by many types of corporations, which is the way it should be. Dumbing it down like this reminds me of the transition from Morrowind to Oblivion to Skyrim where Bethesda has kept dumbing it down and making less and less types of weaponry and using simpler names. It is wrong. What they should be doing is creating and adding more types of weaponry, more types of ships, and more ship customization. That should be the goal. Why would you even think about changing the names so they are simpler? Who actually cares about that? This.
Oh and also whatever you call the turrets, make sure the in-game models match the names. This is an issue already with most weapon types except blasters and missiles, I believe: most Gatling rails, ACs, and lasers actually aren't, and some Dual weapons aren't, and those Gatling ACs that do look Gatling-y turn out to be just one barrel with a spinny cage around it.
also fix square barrels on artillery plz kthx Stealth OST puns and blatant lies since 2009 Jace Errata on Twitter
One day they woke me up so I could live forever It's such a shame the same will never happen to you |
Aamrr
278
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 18:53:00 -
[88] - Quote
While you're fixing inconsistencies, I don't suppose you could touch up the T2 overclocking rigs? They currently take twice the calibration of their T1 counterparts, instead of 50% more as is the standard for every other rig. |
Sudelle
NoVeL ConCEptS Inc.
3
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 18:55:00 -
[89] - Quote
I would think from a game lore standpoint that you wouldn't want all meta levels named the same for all 4 empires. no?
As far as Amarr goes, how about some sort of religious descriptor.
Anointed Blessed Holy Exalted
Put them in whatever order you would like. I just don't see why all the empires would have the same naming philosophy.
Then as far as the guns go, yes those need to be changed. A small medium laser is confusing as all get out. But it would be nice to find some sort of empire theme for them. Gatling doesn't seem very religious.
Maybe something along the lines of
Banishing Eradicating Purging
Then put the size in front of it. So you would have
Frigates would have: Small Banishing Laser I Small Anointed Banishing Laser I
Cruisers would have: Medium Banishing Laser I Medium Exalted Banishing Laser I
Anyway just some feedback and suggestions...
|
Sun Win
Kill It With Fire
45
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 19:02:00 -
[90] - Quote
Sudelle wrote:Then put the size in front of it. So you would have
Frigates would have: Small Banishing Laser I Small Anointed Banishing Laser I
Cruisers would have: Medium Banishing Laser I Medium Exalted Banishing Laser I
OH GOD PLEASE DO THIS.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |