I have two criticisms of the revised naming conventions, and one observation which is linked to a question.

1. The generic terms GÇ£ampleGÇ¥ and GÇ£restrainedGÇ¥, with their connotations of bosoms and BDSM respectively, and GÇ£scopedGÇ¥, continue to be inappropriate to technological equipment and implausible for a highly developed and variegated future technological market. (GÇ£ScopedGÇ¥ is not a word. It looks like it ought to be the past participle of a verb, GÇ£to scopeGÇ¥, meaning, if we are to believe your use of it here, GÇ£to make reach furtherGÇ¥. This is gibberish. The designation you are looking for is GÇ£long-rangeGÇ¥.) These terms, as they stand, feel stupid, and they make me feel stupid fitting modules named with them to my ships. I feel like I am being talked down to by my game. I notice that since their release I have been avoiding using them, solely for that reason.

2. You are attempting to introduce a very rigid consistency into an area where it is inappropriate, and where we do not suffer from its lack IRL. This is nowhere more obvious than in the decision to call an overdrive, a module intended to be the quintessence of extra power and speed, GÇ£restrainedGÇ¥. This is absurd: the marketing genius of the future who came up with this would be fired instantly. A kind of cookie-cutter sameness is being applied across the board to items regardless of what those items actually are. I donGÇÖt feel you are taking your own fictional world seriously any more. I have no idea, in that case, why I should continue to.

Observation: Travelling round New Eden in recent days IGÇÖve tried to keep an eye out for the relative prices of the generic modules from the last round of tiericide, and my sense is that there are massive price differences between the new named modules. On the assumption that, for example, GÇ£compactGÇ¥ LMLs are not dropping significantly less frequently than GÇ£ampleGÇ¥ ones, I assume that in many cases one of them is much more popular and being used more widely than the other(s), and is being priced accordingly. Is this right in terms of actual usage? If it is, is it the result you were expecting when you decided to remove modules you felt were being under-used? How are you evaluating the success of module tiericide in general?