Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
ElSuerte Diego
Los Perros Hermanos
6
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 23:57:00 -
[61] - Quote
I'll miss the naming conventions, but my main concern is that they didn't make player created items more relevant.
As the module tiericide plan stands now, there is simply no reason to use t1 m0 items, just like before, because the mods looted from npc's still receive a general buff over the m0 player made items. IMO, that is antithetical to the spirit of the EVE player driven economy.
Ideally, the new meta mods should just be specialized versions of the m0 mod. They shouldn't receive a general buff on top of the specialization. |
Jon Joringer
Zero-K
144
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 00:28:00 -
[62] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Jon Joringer wrote:Module teircide is a great idea -- having different modules of the same type actually have uses is awesome. But I do agree that the naming convention is just going to be bland. Surely there is a way to work these new 'catch words' into the existing, more interesting and unique names.
Example: Focused Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor, as opposed to Focused Stasis Webifier (along side a whole slew of other 'Stasis Webifiers'). One remains interesting, one does not. Shouldn't be too hard to keep the unique module names in the game. So when I search the market for stasis webifier to look at my options, it doesn't come up in the search..... Bad design I wouldn't be against Focused 'Fleeting' stasis webifier. Keeping the current 'name' in the new name still, but I shouldn't have to memorise variant names for a stasis webifier just to find them in a search. I don't really see the issue. The market is already subdivided into module types for that very reason. If you want to see all types of stasis webifiers, just expand the web tree. I suppose the search feature could be updated to bring up module trees if it's really that much of a hassle for people (i.e. type in stasis web and click module type box and be taken to the same list that you could have just expanded manually).
It's really not a huge issue, but I'll be sad if all of our interesting module names just become bland and formulaic. Might as well call ships Minmatar Combat Cruiser, Minmatar Attack Cruiser, etc, too. That makes it easier for newbros to understand, too, right? |
Morihei Akachi
Nishida Corporation
80
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 00:43:00 -
[63] - Quote
I'm more or less in favour of changing the module stats, I guess, but I can see no reason to change the names to something as generic and boring as the suggestions currently on the table. Having different and interesting names for modules has been an aspect of immersion I've personally really enjoyed. Sure, you curse that "limited" and "upgraded" mean different meta levels for MWDs and ABs, but after a while you chuckle and are secretly proud of yourself that you've mastered even this little inconsistency in the game. And that's the point: it's interesting complexity, like learning off all the names of the kings of Numenor or the dates of the emperors of Rome. (Did the first once, never quite managed the second.) It contributes to that odd sense of competence and satisfaction that is surely a not inconsiderable part of what attracts us to Eve and keeps us playing. Your spirit is the true shield. |
Glathull
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
759
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 02:16:00 -
[64] - Quote
I haven't read the dev blog yet. Will go do that now. One of the things that really got me hooked on EvE is that there was so much incredibly confusing stuff. It's like the real world. Some products are better and more expensive, some are more expensive but not actually better, some are cheaper and better, some are cheaper and worse.
I always felt like this aspect of a player-driven economy was really cool. It was a challenge to learn however many years ago, and it's cool to understand now.
I suspect I'll feel unhappy based on what I'm reading here. But I'm reserving an opinion until later. For now, I think it feels more right and more real for there to be lots of confusing options to understand. I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon |
Kousaka Otsu Shigure
Cora Relics and Antiquities
7
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 08:23:00 -
[65] - Quote
For me, this is kinda like the 'we don't want round reticles, bring back the square ones!'
The (possibly) one less click/mouseover to know what an object would do, is always a good UI feature for me. Change it! Change everything! Adapt or Die! |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
367
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 08:48:00 -
[66] - Quote
Remember YT-8 Overcharged MWDs. Still missing you, my old prop mod buddy. RIP.
Soon, we will see the end of the C5-L Shield Boosters, FS-9 Shield Extenders, 'Accommodation' Vestment Reconstructors, 'Solace' Remote Armor Repairers, Peroxide Capacitor Power Cells, and Unstable Power Fluctuators.
Yeah, this is not the first time CCP's renaming of modules has been brought into question regarding easier but unoriginal versus more unique and interesting names. Also, still don't get the whole "Invulnerability Field" becomes "Adaptive Invulnerability Field". Just seems like a bigger mouthful for the sake of making it sound more like an armor module; in other words, I still think this is more confusing than easier to read. |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
367
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 08:53:00 -
[67] - Quote
ElSuerte Diego wrote:I'll miss the naming conventions, but my main concern is that they didn't make player created items more relevant.
As the module tiericide plan stands now, there is simply no reason to use t1 m0 items, just like before, because the mods looted from npc's still receive a general buff over the m0 player made items. IMO, that is antithetical to the spirit of the EVE player driven economy.
Ideally, the new meta mods should just be specialized versions of the m0 mod. They shouldn't receive a general buff on top of the specialization.
^ This. I had hoped that the mod tiericide would do just that. Alas, I get to simply reaffirm my old saying, "Hope for the best, but expect the worst." |
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
231
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 09:16:00 -
[68] - Quote
ISD Ezwal wrote:I can earnestly say it would be a sad day if they where to change these names: We're relying on you to ban Fozzie when he posts the target painter tiericide thread.
Please don't let us down. |
Priscilla Project
Custom Clothing Productions
142
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 09:25:00 -
[69] - Quote
I miss the Y-10 10mn Aterburner. Most epic piece of hardware to put on a rifter! Not even sure anymore that was called that way. -.-'
I guess this mea s they will kill the yf-12 smartbombs too..... The most sexy piece of clothing New Eden saw to date! The 'Open Avenue' short dress! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=374461 Join my mailing list, "wemew", for fast and easy future updates! (without the ") |
Lady Spank
The Intaki Ladies Deep Space Astrogation Auxiliary
3682
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 09:42:00 -
[70] - Quote
Let's simplify eve by:
1. Removing choice and making eve ships fits even more homogenised. 2. Oh you need 1CPU more on your fitting*? Sorry, we removed that tier 3 scram because it was making Eve too complicated to keep it in the item database. (*Which is quite common on a lot of frigate fits). 3. Needlessly renaming modules so you have to relearn them. 4. Removing cultural variety between the 4 races (LOL RP, if you like).
I'd like to think CCP will reconsider this change but it's unlikely despite what it represents for the future of the game. (a¦á_a¦â) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (a¦á_a¦â) |
|
Lady Spank
The Intaki Ladies Deep Space Astrogation Auxiliary
3682
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 09:44:00 -
[71] - Quote
Kousaka Otsu Shigure wrote:For me, this is kinda like the 'we don't want round reticles, bring back the square ones!'
The (possibly) one less click/mouseover to know what an object would do, is always a good UI feature for me. Change it! Change everything! Adapt or Die!
Except it has the opposite effect since you need to relearn the new module names AND figure out which of the varieties of modules they decided to keep because they boiled down varied modules into just one. (a¦á_a¦â) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (a¦á_a¦â) |
Priscilla Project
Custom Clothing Productions
145
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 10:24:00 -
[72] - Quote
Lady Spank wrote:Let's simplify eve by:
1. Removing choice and making eve ships fits even more homogenised. 2. Oh you need 1CPU more on your fitting*? Sorry, we removed that tier 3 scram because it was making Eve too complicated to keep it in the item database. (*Which is quite common on a lot of frigate fits). 3. Needlessly renaming modules so you have to relearn them. 4. Removing cultural variety between the 4 races (LOL RP, if you like).
I'd like to think CCP will reconsider this change but it's unlikely despite what it represents for the future of the game. Hey ... this actually makes sense to be brought up in Jita too ........................... The most sexy piece of clothing New Eden saw to date! The 'Open Avenue' short dress! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=374461 Join my mailing list, "wemew", for fast and easy future updates! (without the ") |
Jandice Ymladris
Aurora Arcology
869
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 11:05:00 -
[73] - Quote
I get the idea behind the Module Tiericide, reducing the clutter of all the various modules & put a system in it. Part of the flavor for fitting will go lost, that's sadly a given. But in return, this tiericide could make Meta modules open for player creation, blueprints & such as they're more consistent now. It would also help in introducing new variants of modules with themes (by example, caldari modules use less CPU & Minmatar Modules would use less powergrid etc etc)
What I am against is the bland naming schedule of the new tiericide modules. While names in itself don't mean much, they do help in improving immersion & enjoyment of the game. It's just more fun firing 'prototype' guns or 'XT-2800' launchers then firing 'ample' and 'compact' weapons. The blandness of the new names does take away a bit of the fun sci-fi feeling of EVE in my opinion.
Some module lines do need name simplification (especially in the engineering department, some modules vary wildly without even hinting about it in names). I do agree with the 'simplification' assessment that all modules of the same line should carry the same name + some extension to differ them, but please make the extension sound better then 'ample' or 'compact' A 'Prototype' Blaster by example still carries home the message that it is a blaster that is amplified compared to the normal 'Blaster'. Freeing slaves, the first step of many... -áNew Eden Capsuleer writing contest! Deadline 15 october! |
Seneca Auran
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
42
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 11:18:00 -
[74] - Quote
Kaivar Lancer wrote:I support module tiercide. It would actually make meta 1-3 modules useful.
I also support changing the names of meta modules. When I first started, I thought 'prototype' cannons were crap. Ya know, because they were prototypes, and not the real thing. I wonder how many newbies made the same mistake of swapping meta 4s for crappy T1 modules because of their names.
Or perhaps it would be more constructive to induct newbros into the mysteries of the 'show information' button, and teach them how to decipher the esoteric symbols of the 'attributes tab'.
|
Jennifer Maxwell
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
163
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 14:54:00 -
[75] - Quote
Lady Spank wrote:Let's simplify eve by:
1. Removing choice and making eve ships fits even more homogenised. 2. Oh you need 1CPU more on your fitting*? Sorry, we removed that tier 3 scram because it was making Eve too complicated to keep it in the item database. (*Which is quite common on a lot of frigate fits). 3. Needlessly renaming modules so you have to relearn them. 4. Removing cultural variety between the 4 races (LOL RP, if you like).
I'd like to think CCP will reconsider this change but it's unlikely despite what it represents for the future of the game. You made a point I wanted to bring up but forgot.
Consolidating down modules will eventually lead to quite a few fitting changes needing to be made to our ships, because of that exact reason. For frigate and destroyer pilots, this is really gonna hit hard.
I know at least four people who, once they actually understand whats happening, are gonna be royally pissed. |
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon Cynosural Field Theory.
1377
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 16:02:00 -
[76] - Quote
Every loss in diversity makes EVE look like every other mediocre MMO out there. The real deal in EVE was always that there is so much diversity....choices, consequences, putting some thought to what you are actually doing. Not everything needs to have a purpose for everyone in this game. I really Do not need a black monolith in space but to know that it is out there somewhere is satisfying. To sacrifice the diversity for the sake of simplyfication will turn players away. Sure, dumb fucks may find a protected environment to enfold and EVE probably even gains some One-time subs but long term costumers (the ones that buy plex for cash) will just be disgusted. TunDraGon is recruiting! "Also, your boobs " -á CCP Eterne, 2012 "When in doubt...make a di++k joke."-áRobin Williams - RIP
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9909
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 16:07:00 -
[77] - Quote
While I don't really like losing the named modules, and they certainly could have done a better job on the names of the items replacing them, my actual problem with this is quite different. ( "Ample"? "Scoped"? This isn't Borderlands, yeesh )
Namely, it does nothing to address the problem of T1(and Faction to a lesser extent) lasers remaining entirely useless. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |
Kaivar Lancer
Unlimited Speciality Networks
549
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 16:57:00 -
[78] - Quote
Seneca Auran wrote:
Or perhaps it would be more constructive to induct newbros into the mysteries of the 'show information' button, and teach them how to decipher the esoteric symbols of the 'attributes tab'.
Adding unnecessary tabs / clicks is just poor design. The name of the module should describe it's function and quality. Maybe add an information tab that provides some lore. |
Priscilla Project
Custom Clothing Productions
153
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 16:59:00 -
[79] - Quote
Kaivar Lancer wrote:Seneca Auran wrote:
Or perhaps it would be more constructive to induct newbros into the mysteries of the 'show information' button, and teach them how to decipher the esoteric symbols of the 'attributes tab'.
Adding unnecessary tabs / clicks is just poor design. The name of the module should describe it's function and quality. Maybe add an information tab that provides some lore. No.
That's an extremely shallow and cold approach to it. With that logic, CCP could just rename everything to the bland **** they are planning on doing right now.
Just because you lack any depth or interest in it, it doesn't mean that nobody else does or that it's not actually important.
This is exactly the same as it is in reallife. Literally everything has some sort of name attached to it, because it helps people make a connection. It's a selling point. It adds depth.
It's the same thing in this game and CCP lacks understanding of the matter and rather wants to turn everything into the same cold, bland shallowness.
The only people who could want this are people with no emotional depth whatsoever. The most sexy piece of clothing New Eden saw to date! The 'Open Avenue' short dress! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=374461 Join my mailing list, "wemew", for fast and easy future updates! (without the ") |
Violet Hurst
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 18:13:00 -
[80] - Quote
Greetings,
i too favor interesting names over an easily parseable naming convention. The problems with searching items some encountered could imho be solved by having the text search (offered in the market, cargo and assets window, etc.) query the type field as well as the name.
When it comes to the stats of the new items, i'm all for a role-based distinction. However nobody seems to know yet how many of the current named module classes will be specialized that way and how many will just get consolidated into one "upgraded" item. A smaller number of modules leads to a smaller number of possible fittings, which in turn leads to less diversity in the game. (Which is a bad thing.) Fewer items also make the market less interesting for traders, which leads me to my last point:
The devblog stated there'd be virtually no reason to use anything else than meta 4, but forgot about one attribute: the price. In many cases you can get a meta 3 module for under a quarter of the price of the meta 4 variant. And in areas where every ISK counts, like being a new player or suicide ganking, this makes a remarkable difference.
|
|
Dave Stark
7001
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 18:39:00 -
[81] - Quote
while the naming conventions currently, are interesting... they're also a pain in the ******* ass. if i want to fit a ship, i don't want to figure out what the named meta 4 module is, or if part of it's name has quote marks in it or not, etc.
while the new names are boring, they're less hassle. and i'd take less hassle over interesting any day of the week. |
Guttripper
State War Academy Caldari State
537
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 18:46:00 -
[82] - Quote
*awaits the renaming of all the solar systems to simpler names and numbers combinations... |
Jennifer Maxwell
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
165
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 19:26:00 -
[83] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:while the naming conventions currently, are interesting... they're also a pain in the ******* ass. if i want to fit a ship, i don't want to figure out what the named meta 4 module is, or if part of it's name has quote marks in it or not, etc.
while the new names are boring, they're less hassle. and i'd take less hassle over interesting any day of the week. Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm that quick on the uptake and amazingly intelligent. But to me, memorizing the items that I constantly use for pvp is really simple. Hell, memorizing all the modules I use is really simple. I even know the names of the modules that I don't use. |
Amber Solaire
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
39
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 19:36:00 -
[84] - Quote
These new names are too simplistic
What is wrong with having some different names for meta modules?
CCP is doing a great job at making everything become bland and humdrum
The idea is to encourage people to remember names, unless you think we all have Alzheimers..... |
Morihei Akachi
Nishida Corporation
86
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 20:32:00 -
[85] - Quote
The new names do seem to take away from the colour and richness of the universe of New Eden a bit. Hard to imagine that in the fraught and competitive future Eve is meant to create, all the developers of starship modules are going to stick to this one homogenous scheme. At least, I find it harder to believe than the current, much more realistic chaos. And I want to be able to believe New Eden. Believability, as far as it goes, is a part of what makes it fun to play. At least for me. But perhaps I'm in a minority with this. Your spirit is the true shield. |
Seneca Auran
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 20:53:00 -
[86] - Quote
Kaivar Lancer wrote:Seneca Auran wrote:
Or perhaps it would be more constructive to induct newbros into the mysteries of the 'show information' button, and teach them how to decipher the esoteric symbols of the 'attributes tab'.
Adding unnecessary tabs / clicks is just poor design. The name of the module should describe it's function and quality. Maybe add an information tab that provides some lore.
The name of the module does describe it's function. But still, in the spirit of making things simpler for easily confused newbros and the lazy, I propose a new naming system!
Examples:
Good Gun I Better Gun I Even Better Gun I Awesomest Gun I
Fast Afterburner I Faster Afterburner I Like, REALLY Fast Afterburner I OMG BRO! SO FAST! Afterburner I |
Bas Hauser
Hate Me Inc
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 21:00:00 -
[87] - Quote
Look at a real life example: BMW 2014 M6 Gran Coup+¬ 6C91 ---> Fast BMW Car
Would look AMAZING in their new ad!
Oceanus should be callled 'Hasbro' instead... :-(
|
Pen Ris
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 21:01:00 -
[88] - Quote
How did CCP find all these masochists and get them to buy an Internet spaceship game.
They come up with some names that actually make sense and a 100 people lose their mind.
If the RP community doesn't appreciate the names, then they can make up whatever slang they want to call the modules with better lore than the developers anyway. |
Priscilla Project
Custom Clothing Productions
162
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 21:13:00 -
[89] - Quote
Pen Ris wrote:How did CCP find all these masochists and get them to buy an Internet spaceship game.
They come up with some names that actually make sense and a 100 people lose their mind.
If the RP community doesn't appreciate the names, then they can make up whatever slang they want to call the modules with better lore than the developers anyway. Except that "sense" in your mind is only half of actual reality.
Preferring a cold and bland naming scheme is fine, but there is more to naming items than having an easy way to find them.
People who are for this idea completely ignore the fact that reality shows that it makes PERFECT SENSE that things have *actual* names!
I can't believe how emotionally dead so many people nowadays are.
But hey, if that's what you want ... why not have them rename ships too?
Minmatar Attack Frigate. Minmatar Combat Frigate. Minmatar Logistics Frigate. Gallente Attack Frigate. Gallente Combat Frigate. Gallente Logistics Frigate.
This would be the exact same **** ... and no one in his right mind would want that!
Yet, all the emotionally blind people think it's a smart idea for modules, showing that they lack the *understanding* of the depth that properly named modules actually give! The most sexy piece of clothing New Eden saw to date! The 'Open Avenue' short dress! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=374461 Join my mailing list, "wemew", for fast and easy future updates! (without the ") |
Seneca Auran
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
46
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 21:15:00 -
[90] - Quote
Pen Ris wrote:How did CCP find all these masochists and get them to buy an Internet spaceship game.
Yes, truly it requires a deep sadomasochist streak to find it acceptable to actually have to pay attention to things in game to figure out what is best for doing what.
Quote:If the RP community doesn't appreciate the names, then they can make up whatever slang they want to call the modules with better lore than the developers anyway.
It doesn't require being some sort of hardcore roleplayer to enjoy the game having some flavor and variety.
I mean why do we even have different ships in game? That players ship looks completely different from mine, how am I supposed to know what it is or what it does? Click on the info and find out for myself? I thought I signed up for a video game, not a BDSM club. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |