Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 46 post(s) |

Renier Gaden
Exanimo Inc Anger Management.
12
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 14:18:00 -
[181] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:Kuehnelt wrote:If you want to make meta levels clear, just add them to the name as a version number, excluding T2 and faction. So, Heavy Modulated Pulse Energy Beam I.4; Experimental 1MN Afterburner I.3
........
EDIT: !!! - right, that AB is the old Cold Gas AB. Back when it was named Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters, I used to always know that what I wanted if I wanted a small AB was the cold-gas one. Now that it's has this 'helpful' name, I don't regard it as having a name at all, and just go straight to the meta level. That suggestion is perfect IMHO for Meta resolution. So, using various suggestions I've seen so far, alternate schemes : Light Pulse Laser I Anode Light Pulse Laser I.1 Modal Light Pulse Laser I.2 Afocal Light Pulse Laser I.3 Modulated Light Pulse Laser I.4 Light Pulse Laser II Clean, simple, module name is placed at end, so you can search "Light Pulse Laser" and get all meta types, if you want all T1s you can just do 'Light Pulse Laser I.', if you want T2, you just put 'II' at the end. I think changing the anode, modal, etc is fine as long as you replace them with something better, more consistent or cooler. I agree with this. I have come to agree with the people in this thread that say adding Upgraded/Limited/Experimental/Prototype to everything just makes it bland (and unnecessarily long). Add the meta number to make it easier to use, and keep unique names for flavour.
I am in favour of tweaking names a bit though to insure a name always refers to the same meta level. GÇ£ScoutGÇ¥ should always refer to the same meta level.
I also like the idea of putting the meta number in the corner of the icon.
Edit:
Quote:If we, and I stress the if as this is just rambling, what about I think I prefer: I.I I.II I.III I.IV
Just keeping with how we tend to do things.
I am fine with that. |

Shanija
Confetti Explosion
7
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 14:25:00 -
[182] - Quote
Some of the meta stuff, the missile launchers specifically, always made sense to me as different "brands." Like I guess 'Arbalest', 'Malkuth' etc are brands and depending on the size a different manufacturer's weapon might have better performance. I guess it still kinda makes sense that way, just now one of them is a premium brand and always makes the best item instead of them varying a bit.
What throws the "Experimental" and such off is the "1" part. If it was "Upgraded Thing I", "Limited Edition Thing I", "Prototype Thing II", "Experimental Thing II" then that would make more sense to me. (and yes, "Limited" on its own makes me think it should be worse than the basic version, not better).
Either way, I totally support making the names better. I think one of the problems EVE often has is not that it is complicated, but that things are presented in a confusing way. The "20 GW" etc sounds very good to me. I also like the suggestions related to tagging items with their meta level somehow. If that was done then it'd let them keep their weird and unique names while not being confusing. |

Fleet Warpsujarento
Caldari's Pride - Factional Warfare Cadet School
150
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 14:37:00 -
[183] - Quote
-Tech 1 -Amplified -Convergent, -Focused, -Optimised -Tech II |

Rokhaard Indiz
Eristocracy Inc
3
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 14:48:00 -
[184] - Quote
I've found the new naming schemes really boring so far. And it hasn't yet been too helpful, I still have to check whether experimental or limited 1MN afterburner is the better one before buying it. 
I'd guess that easily accessible or even visible meta levels and sorting by meta level where appropriate (markets and such) would achieve almost everything you're trying to get with all this renaming while allowing the flavor to remain. yes |

Phoenus
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
34
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 15:10:00 -
[185] - Quote
Devs trying to fix something that really doesn't need fixing. 
The existing naming conventions have been in place for the last 9 years, and for the last 9 years those names have been fine. The last set of changes were bad enough (one of the great things about EVE was some of the 'quirky' naming systems - e.g. Cold-Gas Arcjets, which you are have started systematically destroying). |

Renier Gaden
Exanimo Inc Anger Management.
12
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 15:15:00 -
[186] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:I do like changes that make searching for things more logical. Also if the name of said item feels right.
I really don't want to change the topic too much, but I was wondering about the meta levels. Currently the three most used are level 1,4 and 5. Level 1 for dirt cheap option, level 4 for best fitting and level 5 for the best bang so to speak. Level 2 and 3 are, well pointless. Where role do they really have in this game? Granted there is rare cases where a person will opt for a meta 2 or 3, but it seems to only be for a scram, disruptor or web.
Often the jump in price from Meta 3 to Meta 4 is not worth the small improvement. Particularly when you are fitting a PVP ship that is likely to be destroyed soon, and the more ISK you spend on fitting it, the worse it looks on your kill board when someone blows it up. So, to respond to your post, that is what Meta 3's are for.
Also, it is not uncommon for meta 3 to have lower fitting requirements than meta 4. |

Radgette
EVE Irn Bru Distribution
5
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 18:38:00 -
[187] - Quote
Phoenus wrote:Devs trying to fix something that really doesn't need fixing.  The existing naming conventions have been in place for the last 9 years, and for the last 9 years those names have been fine. The last set of changes were bad enough (one of the great things about EVE was some of the 'quirky' naming systems - e.g. Cold-Gas Arcjets, which you are have started systematically destroying).
this ^^
really it's starting to get silly
i can completely understand the need to change niggly things like medium pulses being small guns for simplicity, if it's really needed which it's not. EVE is fun exactly because it's complex and it rewards time spent learning.
also as stated numerous times in this thread the new afterburner and MWD name changes have actually made it harder to find the ones you want as the new naming convention makes even less sense with all the gaps in certain metas availability.
yes make things easier but don't remove the quirky names they ADD to eve not detract from it.
considering seriously coming to fanfest just to yell at you tbh :p ( renaming akemons when you didnt rename any other "officer" implant was just asking for a slap lol ).
i'm all for changing things that need doing, infact i'm all for it but don't do it for OCD's sake.
some of the best solutions have come from Bloodpetal his "compromises" cater to both sides of the argument and unlike the MWD changes would keep the flavour of the names and allow your need to make everything neat survive.
|

MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1101
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 23:27:00 -
[188] - Quote
mrpapageorgio wrote:MotherMoon wrote:Upgraded (meta level 1) Limited (meta level 2) Experimental (meta level 3) Prototype (meta level 4)
Make dust follow this too! These new meta names ccp has taken to using are absolutely awful. Does it make sense at all that a prototype or experimental item would actually be better than something that is upgraded. It makes no sense at all. How about instead they use a naming convention already in place that makes some sense. The naming system from learning implants. Limited Beta Basic Standard Improved Advanced Elite Obviously here you have more names than are needed for the meta levels, so throw out the ones that seem the most redundant.
well I like your names better. my point was more make both games follow the same naming convention http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |

Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Tactical Narcotics Team
182
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 12:00:00 -
[189] - Quote
I know 3 things:
Having a "limited" meta item being better than a "upgraded" meta items is super confusing and doesn't make sense for me and any other person I've talked with... It should be T1 -> limited -> upgraded -> experimental -> prototype (Advanced???) -> T2
Be careful not having too long names (The implants could easily lose the "inherent" part...)
Make sure most modules get to keep their unique nick names!! Removing nicknames for generic meta description names often makes it incredible hard to make fast search for unique items... Each category of items should have a unique nickname attached to them that doesn't mix up with too many other categories.
for missile launchers the malkuth, limos, xx-xxxx and arbalest are awesome and I would hate to see those going away. "Arbalest" would result in about 7 results only instead of a word like "prototype" and name wouldn't be half the length of what implants have...
With blasters I think it is fair to have names changed to indicate their weapon size (light/small, medium and heavy) Keeping the different tier names to electron, ion and neutron is a definite must! As the blasters have the unique tier names and no current nick names they can do without... Having a "light prototype neutron blaster I", "medium limited electron blaster I" makes good sense :-)
With pulse lasers you could easily revamp the names as most people find them super confusing: light / medium / heavy + limited / upgraded / experimental / prototype + unique name + pulse laser I unique names could easy be: scattered / focused or strike / impact (rather than afocal)
If I was handling all this I would take it 1 group at a time doing both short range and long range at once... I think for most weapon types you should have space to have unique names within only 1 category to avoid confusion:
missiles : malkuth, limos, xx-xxxx, arbalest Pulse : find new name like suggested or call them a unique size measured in MW Beams : find new name like suggested or call them a unique size measured in MW blasters : electron/ion/neutron should be good enough as a unique Railguns : unique size should be good enough as a unique (however I would consider renaming to avoid conflict between 125mm and 150mm) Autocannons : unique size should be good enough as a unique Artillery : unique size should be good enough as a unique |

Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Tactical Narcotics Team
182
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 12:02:00 -
[190] - Quote
Also the implants would be so much easier to find in containers and hangars if you switched around in the name sequence and removed some of the long names...
Putting EG-601 first instead of last would make it so much easier for us |
|

CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
387

|
Posted - 2012.08.17 16:02:00 -
[191] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:I know 3 things:
Having a "limited" meta item being better than a "upgraded" meta items is super confusing and doesn't make sense for me and any other person I've talked with... It should be T1 -> limited -> upgraded -> experimental -> prototype (Advanced???) -> T2
Be careful not having too long names (The implants could easily lose the "inherent" part...)
Make sure most modules get to keep their unique nick names!! Removing nicknames for generic meta description names often makes it incredible hard to make fast search for unique items... Each category of items should have a unique nickname attached to them that doesn't mix up with too many other categories.
for missile launchers the malkuth, limos, xx-xxxx and arbalest are awesome and I would hate to see those going away. "Arbalest" would result in about 7 results only instead of a word like "prototype" and name wouldn't be half the length of what implants have...
With blasters I think it is fair to have names changed to indicate their weapon size (light/small, medium and heavy) Keeping the different tier names to electron, ion and neutron is a definite must! As the blasters have the unique tier names and no current nick names they can do without... Having a "light prototype neutron blaster I", "medium limited electron blaster I" makes good sense :-)
With pulse lasers you could easily revamp the names as most people find them super confusing: light / medium / heavy + limited / upgraded / experimental / prototype + unique name + pulse laser I unique names could easy be: scattered / focused or strike / impact (rather than afocal)
If I was handling all this I would take it 1 group at a time doing both short range and long range at once... I think for most weapon types you should have space to have unique names within only 1 category to avoid confusion:
missiles : malkuth, limos, xx-xxxx, arbalest Pulse : find new name like suggested or call them a unique size measured in MW Beams : find new name like suggested or call them a unique size measured in MW blasters : electron/ion/neutron should be good enough as a unique Railguns : unique size should be good enough as a unique (however I would consider renaming to avoid conflict between 125mm and 150mm) Autocannons : unique size should be good enough as a unique Artillery : unique size should be good enough as a unique
Thank you for your feedback, and on the implants from your next post. :)
Content Designer | Team Five 0 @regnerBA |
|

Axl Borlara
T.R.I.A.D Ushra'Khan
46
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 17:09:00 -
[192] - Quote
I agree with having a set of names for each group of weapons to define meta level.
The missile launchers work great - malkuth, limos, xx-xxxx, arbalest. The names are consistent (ish!) across all launchers, make it less excel-in-space and have no inherent meaning. You learn the order of which ones are best and that's it.
The main problem with limited - upgraded - experimental - prototype is that each word has an implied meaning. for example, limited could mean special edition (better) or more limited than usual (worse). Worse still, different people associate different implied meanings, which just makes everyone confused.
Fixing the inconsistencies is the main priority. eg medium lasers are actually small. But sometimes medium as well. Consistent means it can be learnt. It doesn't necessarily have to be dumbed down as well though. |

Bill Serkoff2
Tachyon Technology
56
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 17:17:00 -
[193] - Quote
pls don't take my lasers
"The Cyclone and the Drake are two ships which will basically never be good for shield tanking, primarily because they have almost no lowslots in addition to shield tanking bonuses. " -Iam Widdershins |

Tor Gungnir
Agenda Industries
379
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 17:26:00 -
[194] - Quote
The easiest type of Turrets to understand are Projectile Turrets. You've got very familiar names on them, like Auto-Cannons and Artillery. No-one is going to get confused about which is the long range and short range category.
Not only that, but you have them split into millimetres which is the standard for modern guns today. A 1400mm Artillery cannon is bigger than a 1200mm. No confusion there.
Laz0rs... laz0rs are a mess. There is no logic it seems. As a Projectile user, I get scared and confused whenever I look them over in the market. There definitely needs to be a "pattern" to naming them. Terms like "Medium" and "Heavy" don't actually mean Medium and Large turrets.
The suggestion of naming them after Watts is a great one because that would work like millimetres for Projectile turrets. Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you. |

Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
134
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 17:49:00 -
[195] - Quote
Tor Gungnir wrote:The easiest type of Turrets to understand are Projectile Turrets. You've got very familiar names on them, like Auto-Cannons and Artillery. No-one is going to get confused about which is the long range and short range category.
Not only that, but you have them split into millimetres which is the standard for modern guns today. A 1400mm Artillery cannon is bigger than a 1200mm. No confusion there.
Laz0rs... laz0rs are a mess. There is no logic it seems. As a Projectile user, I get scared and confused whenever I look them over in the market. There definitely needs to be a "pattern" to naming them. Terms like "Medium" and "Heavy" don't actually mean Medium and Large turrets.
The suggestion of naming them after Watts is a great one because that would work like millimetres for Projectile turrets.
Repeating artillery
Amat victoria curam. |

Tor Gungnir
Agenda Industries
379
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 18:51:00 -
[196] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote:Tor Gungnir wrote:The easiest type of Turrets to understand are Projectile Turrets. You've got very familiar names on them, like Auto-Cannons and Artillery. No-one is going to get confused about which is the long range and short range category.
Not only that, but you have them split into millimetres which is the standard for modern guns today. A 1400mm Artillery cannon is bigger than a 1200mm. No confusion there.
Laz0rs... laz0rs are a mess. There is no logic it seems. As a Projectile user, I get scared and confused whenever I look them over in the market. There definitely needs to be a "pattern" to naming them. Terms like "Medium" and "Heavy" don't actually mean Medium and Large turrets.
The suggestion of naming them after Watts is a great one because that would work like millimetres for Projectile turrets. Repeating artillery
Ahaha, true, true. But that is just one little screw-up. Nothing in comparison to Laz0rs. Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you. |

Elias Greyhand
Potentially Irresponsible
11
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 19:00:00 -
[197] - Quote
Using Pulse Laser as an example:
Limited Pulse Laser - Think Limited as in meaning "Civilain Self-Defense" Basic Pulse Laser - The most basic combat-rated weapon Pulse Laser - Best of the best in the cheaper bracket Advanced Pulse Laser - The bridge between the best of the "basic" and the top of the line "military" Military Pulse Laser - What you'd expect on a military craft of an Empire; the best you can get
That said, I'm not happy with Basic and Pulse; my inital feeling was:
Limited Pulse Pulse II Advanced Military |

barbara1234
The Knights of Spamalot
1
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 19:22:00 -
[198] - Quote
Really can't understand what all the fuss is about. Checking the market on TQ shows that weapons are listed pretty much in size and then meta lvl order, so even if the names are really confusing, going for a weapon near the bottom of the list will generally be more damaging than one near the top. The name is irrelevant.
And even if the names don't hint at its meta lvl or what ever, it's a great way for newer players to get introduced to the compare tool and learn about the game they're playing. |

Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
374
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 19:28:00 -
[199] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:I know 3 things:
Having a "limited" meta item being better than a "upgraded" meta items is super confusing and doesn't make sense for me and any other person I've talked with... It should be T1 -> limited -> upgraded -> experimental -> prototype (Advanced???) -> T2
Agreed. Limited actually sounds like it would be worse than the regular tech 1 version. Here's my take on a more descriptive progression:
T1 -> Modified -> Upgraded -> Improved -> Advanced -> T2 An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |

Sturmwolke
242
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 10:33:00 -
[200] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote: Luckily though our kind writing department came up with a solution to this nonsense for all equipment. A standerdized meta level descriptor. A quick reminder of how that looks: Upgraded (meta level 1) Limited (meta level 2) Experimental (meta level 3) Prototype (meta level 4)
No. It's a poorly thought out solution. The focus is one element, when it should be holistic (i.e. looking at the leaves on a tree, missing both the tree and forest). You're trying to solve the naming confusion, under the impression that players/new players find it very difficult to fully grasp - in order to make EVE more accessible (aka helping NPE). The naming scheme for lasers, although the most confusing (out of all the weapon types), can be brought in line with several tweaks. What you have here is not a tweak, it's heavy artillery.
Realize one thing. You're slowly chipping away the intangibles that makes EVE stand out. The intangible in this case is flavour. The standard defensive respond to this is "No, we're not dumming EVE down...we're [add whatever reasons you can come up with]". Whatever the reasons, it really doesn't change the fact that you're homogenizing the names. Flavour will be lost. 10-20 years ago, games we're much more "alive" when compared to nowadays. There are signs now that gamers are preferring old games, from the flurry of game remakes (noticeably in the indie scene) - for example, the original XCom/Fallout ... which garnered huge fans. Why do you think Dwarf Fortress, despite the sheer masochism of its UI/gameplay has a dedicated community following since its inception? It's the flavour. The uncertainty. The surprise. The will to learn more. The fun of discovery.
5-10 years from now (assuming CCP is still alive), EVE will have a new generation of players that lived and breathed on simplistic terms, not knowing nor experiencing the old. Here, you will completely alienate the old community that had built EVE into a solid foundation. You trade a stone foundation with sand. The decline will be insidious and I doubt any of the original founders is fully aware of the possibilities as a result of a small seemingly innocent changes, assuming their interest in EVE hadn't waned over time.
CCP FoxFour wrote: So starting with pulse lasers, what could a revamped laser section look like? Before I show this I want to reiterate something I said at the beginning and just now: This is just a design right now, this is what it could look like. Could look like. OK, so on with pretty pictures.
If you're still adamant at homogenizing and using those stupid terms, then I'd suggest a whole new family of terms for weapons. Yes, weapons only. Get the writing department to come up with terms that are more "weaponish" than the stupid Upgrade, Limited, Experimental, Prototype terms you're using for certain modules. Then apply that weapons only term across the board to all weapons. You get to keep your consistency. Flavour isn't entirely gone.
Get your writing department to post their Top 5 ideas in the forum and check the responses. Seriously, it's that simple.
CCP FoxFour wrote: Random other notes: * Faction/Storyline/Officer mods do not include the I on the end. Keep it like this? Or include it? I am leaning towards keeping it as is.
Don't mess around with faction mods. They're fine as is.
CCP FoxFour wrote: * Galting is renamed to Spiral in this case, this is not a sure thing. Lots of people wanted it changed last time this was talked about.
Spiral? Wtf? Are you sure you've got a writing department, did they really come up with this? No, go back to the drawing board and sweat them out until they can produce something acceptable.
Even "Turbo" (aka Small Turbo Pulse Laser I) sounds and looks better than the above. I can also almost guarantee that its meaning isn't lost, when read by players who does not use English as a mother-tongue. That popped into my head without even trying.
Try harder. Sheesh. |

Sturmwolke
244
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 12:27:00 -
[201] - Quote
One more thing, let me illustrate the dissonance between the laser naming confusion and target painters so that you understand a point. A "name", when properly done creates a sense of ownership (if that makes sense). It invokes a powerful feeling or emotional attachment for the players.
Be aware that there are certain player mindsets that tend to treat them as statistics, mere objects or numbers that need to follow a certain order. However, by large, I dare say that the majority are humans that appreciates the beauty of a name.
"Scourge" - remember this debacle?
Strip the target painters name and bring it in line with the rest of the common modules that you mangled (especially the prop mods). Dare you do this? ... if not, WHY? Answer that honestly.
Now do you understand the significance of saving as much as possible the unique names?
P.S. When approaching the issue, do things right for the first time. Leaving room for "iterations" wastes both CCP's time/resources and player feedback (to the point that you won't be getting quality feedback anymore). There's no guarantee that the ball won't get passed around different persons in CCP as you move forward. The poor guy that gets saddled with it won't understand the finer points that goes into the topic, revisiting the same thing like beating a dead horse. Ever called a Technical Support line? How does it feel to get passed around, explaining the same thing all over again for the next guy. |

Matriarch Prime
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 18:09:00 -
[202] - Quote
I recently came back to the game, and the names are definitely something that is very confusing.
I think using a basic mark system would work better. It is time consuming to figure out if an item is better and in what way. The slot symbols (high, med, low, rig) do a good job of conveying basic item information very quickly to the play. I know I'll probably get a lot of flak for saying this, but other games have already figured out other ways to convey information about items very quickly. Using color for the item item text and icon background, along with a mark system and so long as the convention is standarized, you can really go wild with the "quoted" names modules.
I'll use auto cannons as an example, because I'm a mini, so all I know are guns. :)
125mm Gatling Autocannon 125mm Light Carbide Repeating Autocannon 125mm Light Gallium I Machine Gun 125mm Light Prototype I Automatic Cannon 125mm Light 'Scout' Autocannon I 125mm Gatling Autocannon II Faction 125mm Autocannon*
There are only two components to that name that convey useful information to me across all those items. "125mm" and "autocannon". Auto cannon tells me it is a projectile turret (so its a high slot item) and 125mm tells me the size, and bigger is usually better if you can fit it.
"Light" is useful since it tells me a whole lot of information about signature resolution and the intended class of ship it is intended to shoot and be equipped to. But it is not consistent.
I think its ok to have the "scout" in there, but the name needs to mean something. And preferably it should say something about the stats. This is where I think color could help a whole lot. But the convention needs to be consistent to mean something. And by that I mean that the convention should work across all items, not just within a subset. The new little symbols help, but they only work for faction, deadspace and tech tiers. And don't get me started on pith-a / gist-x stuff, nothing about those names tells you what is different.
What is different about the "carbide repeating" compared to the "prototype"? Could you put them in order of ascending meta level without peeking at the item info? I can't. I pulled that list off a website.
Lets see what happens when we make a few changes.
125mm Light Autocannon I - white 125mm Light Autocannon I Mk. II - blue 125mm Light Autocannon I Mk. III - purple 125mm Light Autocannon I Mk. IV - red 125mm Light Autocannon I Mk. V - orange 125mm Light Autocannon II - gold 'Faction' 125mm Light Autocannon I - green
You now have redundancy in how the information is conveyed to the user. You see green. You know its faction. You can also tell from the name. You can even tack on the flavor names at the beginning if the mark system sounds too bland like so.
125mm Light Autocannon I - white text 'Carbide' 125mm Light Autocannon I - blue 'Gallium' 125mm Light Autocannon I - purple 'Prototype' 125mm Light Autocannon I - red 'Scout' 125mm Light Autocannon I - orange 125mm Light Autocannon II - gold 'Faction' 125mm Light Autocannon I - green
You lose the redundancy of information. Because each different class of item would have different meta names, unlike the mark system. And you want redundancy for color blind players, since the colors only really help players with regular vision. And things get confusing again. Is the tech 2 item better than the faction item? The tech 2 has a bigger number on the end.
If I were doing it from scratch, I'd go with something like this...
125mm Light Autocannon 130mm Light Autocannon 135mm Light Autocannon 140mm Light Autocannon 145mm Light Autocannon 150mm Light Autocannon 155mm Light Autocannon ...
And this is where it gets tricky. If an item has a bigger number, it should be more effective. If I have a "faction 125 autocannon" that doesn't tell me if the 150mm tech 1 is going to do more damage or not. You should be able to tell at a glance how effective one item is compared to the other. In this convention, all the items would need to be renamed based on their basic effectiveness. And things like tracking would need to scale along with this scheme as well. Bigger = slower all the way up to the point where you jump to artillery, which has a different name, so its ok to reset things a bit and have a new scaling base like it is now. One can easily understand the difference between an autocannon and artillery. Those names convey a lot of information.
And skills would allow higher meta levels to be equipped. Meaning to equip 200mm faction autocannons you would need very heavy skill investment into light autocannons. And for consistancy, higher meta levels would require more fitting requirements. So if you can fit something, you'd know to fit a lower item level. This would also allow greater granularity in ship fitting.
So, um, yeah. Thats my 2 cents. Its not completely thought out, but its a thought. |

Captain Praxis
EVE University Ivy League
110
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 21:52:00 -
[203] - Quote
I'm firmly with Sturmwolke on this (shame I can only give you 1 like per post!).
Please throw away the awful "Limited, Upgraded, Experimental, Prototype" nomenclature you've used for the propulsion modules. I (a fluent English speaker) find these words far more confusing than the original system as the new terms you have chosen are too ambiguous.
The word "limited" could be taken to mean "of limited utility" (as in it isn't very good/useful), or to mean "limited edition" (as in exclusive). As another example "upgraded" is a comparative term - it has no meaning at all by itself. "X is upgraded" tells you nothing as it is missing the all-important information: "upgraded relative to what?".
While the old terms were no less arbitrary, they were at least distinct. Moreover, they told you something about the module - what it was, what powered it, how it worked... The names had imagination and used elements taken from the real-world, which conjured up the idea of a technology that might actually work. The old names added to the sense of reality and immersion in EVE.
For example: A Catalyzed Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thruster is apparently an Arcjet Rocket (a rocket that uses an arcing electrical-discharge to create extra thrust in the propellant) which uses a Cold Gas propellant (perhaps something like Nitrogen or Carbon Dioxide) and also has a Catalyst to improve the rate of whatever reaction takes place when the thruster is fired. Similarly, a Quad LiF Fueled I Booster Rocket sounds like four Lithium Fluoride powered rockets strapped together and gives the sense that it's a much larger item than the Catalyzed Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thruster (which it should be since it's a battleship-sized module).
Granted, the above name does not tell you that it's a frigate-sized, meta 2 microwarp drive, but that small detail could so elegantly have been solved by changing the name to something like "1MN Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet Microwarp Drive" (or if you prefer something shorter, "1MN Cold-Gas Arcjet Microwarp Drive" or even "1MN Arcjet Microwarp Drive").
While I totally agree that calling a frigate-class laser "Medium" is confusing (and needs to be changed), I'd really hate to see a name as evocative as "Focused Anode Pulse Particle Stream I" (a pulsing laser produced by the electron-stream from an anode perhaps?) become something totally bland and lifeless like "Experimental Pulse-Laser I".
Please don't homogenise module names to the point where you strip all the flavour and soul from them (and by extension from the EVE universe itself)! |

Katalci
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
123
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 23:15:00 -
[204] - Quote
Please don't make names boring; it ruins the atmosphere of the game for no real advantage beyond making things slightly easier for day-old players. Make a separate meta naming system for each type of module.
Also, I want my Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive back. |

Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin
385
|
Posted - 2012.08.19 00:02:00 -
[205] - Quote
all this is well and good, but please *pretty pretty* please can you add a "did you mean" thingy like google for the old names to bring up the new modules.
so if i search for say, regenerative it would come up with "did you mean energized armor layering membrane" and i can find what im looking for.
Took many people many years to learn what everything is called to make the tedious task of .... well playing eve easier and faster, its even more of a challenge to relearn the new names.
Be nice to the vets plz, we put your kids through school CCP :( http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4375/mynewsig2.jpg |

Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Tactical Narcotics Team
184
|
Posted - 2012.08.19 01:06:00 -
[206] - Quote
A color code like a colored bar below each icon for each meta would be pretty cool :-) As long as it's discrete and colors are selected carefully... |

Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
803
|
Posted - 2012.08.19 05:34:00 -
[207] - Quote
Totally off topic.
Description Typo in : Large Group Of Cattle
Quote:TCattle are domestic animals raised for home use or for profit, whether it be for their meat or dairy products.
http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online/item.php?type_id=2725
 Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |

Kuehnelt
Devoid Privateering
221
|
Posted - 2012.08.19 07:03:00 -
[208] - Quote
Captain Praxis wrote:Granted, the above name does not tell you that it's a frigate-sized, meta 2 microwarp drive, but that small detail could so elegantly have been solved by changing the name to something like "1MN Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet Microwarp Drive" (or if you prefer something shorter, "1MN Cold-Gas Arcjet Microwarp Drive" or even "1MN Arcjet Microwarp Drive").
Or it could be solved by finding where people would wonder what this module is in the interface and noting that it's intended for frigates. With extra columns or with non-column sidebars, with icon adjustments, with mechanically added parenthetical remarks ("Cold-Gas Arcjet Thruster (AB) (small) (best meta)", "Gremlin Rocket (EM)", "Multifrequency S (-50%) (best T1 damage)"). Or add right-click Fill This Slot / Find What Fits to slots in the fitting window which would open the market with some extra filters, and once people are used to that the entire problem just goes away. Or if you added speculative fittings (right-click Fit Mock Module) so that people could fit up a ship and realize that they had the wrong prop mod without even wasting any money or wasting any time traveling to pick mods up.
And these purely UI fixes have a lot of obvious additional benefits.
Changing names isn't the solution, it's the workaround. But it's not even a lazy, easy workaround (due to translations, angry people, getting the names just so, having the nature of the problem require you to change everything in EVE, which you'd rather do bit-by-bit which has its own problems, etc.) It's just the natural first-pass-suggestion from picky people who resent having been ever confused by a mere video game -- it's the name that confused them, so it's the name that must change, and anyone who disagrees is just a jerk who inexplicably resents being confused by name-changes and/or hates rookies, and let's not dwell on the matter.
Captain Praxis wrote:While I totally agree that calling a frigate-class laser "Medium" is confusing (and needs to be changed)
Bah. It confuses people who don't use small lasers and it confuses them in silly Hu's on first contexts. |

minx trader
VINGOLF COUNCIL Nulli Tertius
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.19 11:23:00 -
[209] - Quote
make the game much more easier to play, i will start a sub for my 3 year old daughter |

Buzzmong
Aliastra Gallente Federation
220
|
Posted - 2012.08.19 20:56:00 -
[210] - Quote
Matriarch Prime wrote:[Snip]
You boring, boring person.
While I understand what you're trying to do, flavour is very very very very very important, especially in a game that has lots of items and lots of item types, and your suggestion simply removes all flavour and leaves only a bitter taste in the mouth. |
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |