| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
The Obsidian Front
485
   |
Posted - 2014.09.26 14:33:00 -
[1] - Quote
Copper Khai wrote:thanks for all that you do. one small criticism. Some named modules are not EVE-like. they sound like magic items. Maybe you are doing it for beginners or cross over MMO players. But it stuck out to my ears. Ample? Enduring? not very scientific...
- Upgraded- ok
- Compact- ok (nanu, spun, )
- Enduring- no (efficient, stable, streamlined, normalized, eco, rewired, )
- Ample- no (flushed, distended, augmented) or Expanded / Extended
- Scoped- ok
- Restrained- (insulated, confined)
Although I've been looking forward to this (and I've also posted in the features and ideas forum pretty much these exact changes!) the naming of the modules is very dull.
I have to go with Copper Khai on this and her suggestions are so much better. As an engineer by trade, the names I've highlighted in the quote above make so much more sense to me. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
The Obsidian Front
486
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 10:50:00 -
[2] - Quote
Falkor1984 wrote:Gray's Anatomist wrote:I have two issues with the impending doom^W tiericide: Bottom line is: this change devalues player skills and experience. This might initially make for a lower learning curve for new players, but it won't help retain the older players, quite the opposite. Blah-blah, it's 3 days before the update, too late to change anything.  This ^^. How come players see it but CCP does not? They truely believe they are creating a better game, whilst they are actually destroying it. The same thing happened with tiers on ships, that screwed up a lot of crazy fits and choices out there.
Tiercide of the ships was necessary and succesful.
Tiercide of the modules is necessary, however, I do feel that the devs are oversimplifying this whole thing.
The naming system is very "immature".
The number of options is becoming few.
The differentiation between the faction equipment is becoming non existant.
I think these three points above need to be addressed and this whole thing needs to go through the features and ideas system first. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
The Obsidian Front
487
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 09:58:00 -
[3] - Quote
I still think the new naming system is bloody awful. I hate the fact that we didn't get to give any feedback on this.
Personally, although is may be more work, I think the naming system should be much broader. Instead of just having a set of prefixes for EVERY module in game, their should be a set of prefixes for each type of module (similar to now but simpler).
We need to keep the flavour of the Sci Fi nature of the game whilst making it easier to understand without ruining it.
Armour plates are a great example of this because we use materials to seperate the items.
We have
Steel
Nanofiber
Titanium
Crystalline Carbonite
Tungnsten
If we loose this for:
Upgraded
Compact
Restrained
I think it will look awful and not really make sense!
Take armour plates and simply do this to them:
Steel - Basic (snowflakes)
Titanium - T1
Tungnsten - "Upgraded" (All round best)
Nanofiber - Reduced mass penalty but not so good armour boost
Crystalline Carbonite - Easiest to fit
T2 Steel - T2 version (Best Armour, Most difficult to fit, More mass penalty than upgraded)
We keep names that make sense and still appear "Real" becase a "Restrained 800mm armour plate" sounds stupid.
Try to be a bit sci fi with shield extenders too.
Current:
Shield Extender I (T1)
Supplemental Barrier Emitter
Subordinate Screen Stabilizer
Azeotropic Ward Salubrity
F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Shield Extender II (T2)
We only need 3 meta versions so change the names to:
Shield Extender I (T1)
F-S6-R Shield Extender (Lowest Sig Penalty)
F-S4-C Shield Extender (Lowest Fitting)
F-S9 Shield Extender ("Upgraded")
Shield Extender II (T2)
The prefixed letters and numbers will become familiar to users. We don't need the words "Ample or Restrained".
Also, as suggested earlier. Start branding the things!! Implants are branded so why aren't modules!
Examples are easy:
Duvolle Labs Armour Repairer
Boundless Creation Shield Booster
|
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
The Obsidian Front
487
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 10:21:00 -
[4] - Quote
Then lets look at weapons.
Instead of the daft prefixes of
GÇóUpgraded
GÇóCompact
GÇóEnduring
GÇóAmple
GÇóScoped
GÇóRestrained
Do things like:
GR-5 Mounted (Weapon) Where the GR-5 is a high tracking mount
EC-12 Coupled (Weapon) Where the EC-12 is a reduced fitting coupling
F4r/T Scope Fitted (Weapon) Extended Optimal
B-15/cR Scope Fitted (weapon) Extended Falloff
HPc-99 Capacitor Mounted (weapon) Reduced Cap Use
EC-100 Extended Magazine (Weapon) Expanded Capacity |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
The Obsidian Front
493
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 09:01:00 -
[5] - Quote
Emiko Rowna wrote:Harvey James wrote:Shin Dari wrote:DireNecessity wrote:
Will drop rates be adjusted to make named modules rare enough to be more valuable/expensive than player produced meta 0 modules or is the thinking that Tech II manufacturing provides sufficient demand for player produced meta 0 modules and thus thereGÇÖs no need to create even more demand for them by making them sensible options in their own right?
DireNecessity
Rarity is a very poor balancing tool in Eve Online, it hardly ever works. I think that the solution is to have named modules be fabricated by players. This is one of the stated long-term goals of CCP, to have everything be fabricated by players. I think that now is the time to actually do it. In the current situation manufactures and mission runners are competing against each other and not working with each other. Have mission runners provide the components/materials and allow the industrialists to make the named modules. hmmm.. named mods instead of dropping in missions being made instead by manufacturers makes sense ... so combat missions could just be compensated with bigger bounties .. which makes sense .. it should be about the combat rather than salvaging and looting and then having too move the stuff too sell it.. They could drop parts to build the named mod with.
"From the mouths of babes"
This is probably the best idea I've heard in this thread.
CCP. You really need to take a step back here. Your direction here is confused as to what you think your playerbase wants. You're trying to tell us what we want and not listening to what we actually want. Remember what happened last time? It was called "Incarna".
So, what has actually been said?
1st. T1 modules need to retain usefulness over meta modules in some way.
2nd. Naming convention of the modules is extremely important. Get it right and don't try to emulate WoW.
3rd. Players want to BUILD meta modules.
This 3rd point is what I've quoted above. If npc rats dropped "parts" that would make meta modules (like sentient drones drop parts for faction drones) you could combine these parts with T1 modules to build meta modules. This would buff industry as a little bonus on the side!
An example would be that a rat would drop some "Gun Optics". These "Gun Optics" could be combined with a T1 rail gun to produce a "Scoped Railgun" (however, consider the naming system from my earlier post). It would take more parts to make larger guns meaning it can be scaled easily with module sizing. Potentially include salvage to make it more of an isk sink and increase the value of salvage too. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
The Obsidian Front
493
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 10:46:00 -
[6] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote:On a side note.
I'm told that weapon specialization skills only work on Tech 2 weapon systems.
so is it correct to assume that the fire rating difference between a Tech II and a Faction light missile launcher comes down to 0.3 seconds in favor of the Faction launcher when you take level 5 light missile specialization in account?
And with that that the Cosmos Launcher is lower on CPU but has a slower rof?
If so is this intended or can we see a revamp of those weapon specialization skills as well?
This is something I've been advocating for a long time now.
If weapon specialization skills applied to all weapons (T1/Faction/Storyline/T2) then all weapons would be come relevant and more powerful the more SP you piled into them.
T2 guns would retain their special feature of using T2 Ammo but T1/Meta/Faction don't become irrelevent after training the specialisation skills. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
The Obsidian Front
523
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 08:41:00 -
[7] - Quote
I think the guys at CCP need to go and play a game of World of Tanks or Battlefield or something and see that weapons and equipment never has a stupid name like "Ample".
An L2A1 Assault Rifle with an extended magazine fitted wouldn't be called an Ample Assault Rifle.
CCP. We are not children. We're almost exclusively adults. I play EvE because it is a mature MMO. I even enjoy making the kids who play EvE cry by blowing up their **** because they were too imature and impatient to learn about the game mechanics and modules in order to best utilise them.
I would far prefer to have to learn stuff than to simply just "know it". This is one of the crux of this new naming system. |
| |
|