Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jace Errata
Lawlz Brawlz Dec Shield
95
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 22:52:00 -
[121] - Quote
I don't really mind the AB/MWD changes. Missiles though...
I mean if they absolutely had to do this, they could have picked better names, maybe copied the Heavy or Light Missile names. They sound so much more awesome than the ones they chose instead. Let's...just assume there's some kind of signature here, 'k? ... ... OH WAIT. Jace Errata on Twitter |
Sicex
25
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 22:55:00 -
[122] - Quote
Frankly it sounds like they assigned the renaming of these modules to 3 different people in 3 different offices who never once spoke to each other.
Sometimes I wonder if it has something to do with an Icelandic to English translation. |
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
215
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 23:04:00 -
[123] - Quote
OlRotGut wrote:Razin wrote:Petrus Blackshell wrote:The game and its mechanics (and thus its complexity) are absolutely unaffected by the change in name. Complexity in terms of game mechanics is unaffected. However, complexity in terms of simulation of an immersive world sure is. It is unreasonable to believe that in such a geographically and culturally varied world as EVE all of the manufactured missiles are named the same just because they carry similar warheads. It's just one more break in suspension of disbelief. If CCP were'n concerned with variety (as current changes clearly aren't), why not just append the damage type to the old name and be done with it? This change could have been made to satisfy both the usability concerns and the fluff concerns with such a small amount of additional effort on the part of CCP devs... Instead, CCP happened with a vengeance. Simulation of an immerse world? 1000+ ships in a space station that obviously isn't scaled to handle that amount? planets that do not orbit the stars in the solar system? magically re-spawning pirates and 'roids? i mean i could go on and on... that is a weak stance to the renaming argument for certain. You forgot to mention submarines.
Yes, the world of EVE already suffers from a high number of inconsistencies and 'approximations'. That's no reason to add another item to that list. |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
337
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 23:06:00 -
[124] - Quote
Solved all your problems forever.
You're welcome. |
Ion Rubix
University of Caille Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 23:11:00 -
[125] - Quote
Reilly Duvolle wrote: So? Todays noob will say "If I fit an 'Experimental 1MN Microwarpdrive' I wil get an extra 13% out of my engines!"
At least this name indicates that we are in fact talking about a MWD
I guess you missed my previous post. |
Chaos Dreams
Creative Cookie Procuring Rote Kapelle
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 23:53:00 -
[126] - Quote
Seriously? There aren't enough legitimate issues and problems with the game that CCP have to sit some uncreative plebes around a table and come up with new names for everything? Are they just complete ******* morons, or is it their goal to detract from the fun of the game?
Here's a couple tips: Creative names = Good. Bring back hellfire. Generic names = Bad. You're killing the flavor of the game. Changing the names of stuff for no reason = completely brain-dead and clueless. Confusing players, messing up killboards, and breaking every third party program does NOT add to the enjoyment of the game. |
Mr M
Agony Unleashed
85
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 00:09:00 -
[127] - Quote
Instead of the different names they could've just gone with emp heavy assault missile and so on. That would also make it fairly easy to search for.
|
Aldous Borrn
Originated Saviors Bringers of Death.
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 00:33:00 -
[128] - Quote
I, too, am frightened by change. |
Lifelongnoob
The Motley Crew Reborn
3
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 00:37:00 -
[129] - Quote
i dont like these changes......... eve search function has effectively been ruined |
admiral root
Red Galaxy Important Internet Spaceship League
32
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 00:56:00 -
[130] - Quote
They seem to have fixed something that wasn't broken. |
|
greythorne012511
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 00:56:00 -
[131] - Quote
No, the name changes were neither necessary nor desirable. These generic names are bland, and a form of vandalism., done for no reason other than someone could. Some of the allure of the game has been erased. |
DarkAegix
Acetech Systems
836
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 00:59:00 -
[132] - Quote
So much butthurt. This is excellent. |
Imuran
Zentor Industries
8
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 01:06:00 -
[133] - Quote
Chaos Dreams wrote: Creative names = Good. Bring back hellfire. Generic names = Bad. You're killing the flavor of the game.
Thia |
ACE McFACE
Acetech Systems
552
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 01:37:00 -
[134] - Quote
Quote:This is NEX Store 2.0! You're an idiot Real men wear goggles and a Navy shirt! |
Sicex
28
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 01:41:00 -
[135] - Quote
xRazoRx wrote:Black Dranzer wrote:xRazoRx wrote:Why not rename all the ships too? Drake frigate - kestrel Drake cruiser - caracal Drake battleship - raven HELL YEAH STREAMLINING Don't assume your question is rhetorical or that your analogy is sound. The main problem with unifying ship names would be that ship stats vary enormously from ship to ship. A Kestrel ISN'T simply a Drake frigate. But modules are just straight up upgrades of each other. The difference between a Kestrel and a Caracal is huge. The difference between a Meta 1 and a Meta 2 Afterburner is a slight increase in velocity. What about missiles, genius? I could type in "bloodc" and find bloodclaw missile. Now i have to type "trauma li"? Great.
Laugh!
Is this a real gripe? Are we ******* serious?
|
Taipion
Operations Control United Pod Service
12
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 01:51:00 -
[136] - Quote
Razin wrote:OlRotGut wrote:Razin wrote:Petrus Blackshell wrote:The game and its mechanics (and thus its complexity) are absolutely unaffected by the change in name. Complexity in terms of game mechanics is unaffected. However, complexity in terms of simulation of an immersive world sure is. It is unreasonable to believe that in such a geographically and culturally varied world as EVE all of the manufactured missiles are named the same just because they carry similar warheads. It's just one more break in suspension of disbelief. If CCP were'n concerned with variety (as current changes clearly aren't), why not just append the damage type to the old name and be done with it? This change could have been made to satisfy both the usability concerns and the fluff concerns with such a small amount of additional effort on the part of CCP devs... Instead, CCP happened with a vengeance. Simulation of an immerse world? 1000+ ships in a space station that obviously isn't scaled to handle that amount? planets that do not orbit the stars in the solar system? magically re-spawning pirates and 'roids? i mean i could go on and on... that is a weak stance to the renaming argument for certain. You forgot to mention submarines. Yes, the world of EVE already suffers from a high number of inconsistencies and 'approximations'. That's no reason to add another item to that list.
@Razin:
Yea, EVE is not fully immersive, so why bother if we destroy what is left?!?
Dear Razin, please gb2wow, thanks. |
MadMuppet
Kerguelen Station
96
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 03:07:00 -
[137] - Quote
I hate the new names. I mean seriously, EMP S, EMP M, EMP L... whatever they thinking???....
...er oh wait...
... um...
nevermind. :) I know I left a battleship in this station. Wait, you can put ships in Station Containers? ****! I just trashed them. |
ASadOldGit
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
106
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 03:13:00 -
[138] - Quote
I'll just add my 3 ISK worth.
Look at it from a different point of view. Imagine if you'd been playing since day 1 and all you ever knew for years was "EM torps" or "thermal heavies", then, out of the blue, CCP added fancy, exotic names, like "Scourge" and "Mjolnir" to the front of them. I GUARANTEE the forums would implode with the shear number of people complaining about the unnecessary clutter of these stupid "non-EVE" names. Some people just complain about change regardless of how good/bad it is. Just embrace it and learn the new names - you'll forget about it in a few days. (Not saying they're perfect, but they can be improved over time)
Also, if you're shopping for these things on a regular basis, why are you searching for them more than once? Why don't you make a "Missiles" folder in the Market Quickbar and just click it when you need them? Make a "Torpedoes" and "Afterburners" folder too, for all I care. If you're shopping for a ship, surely you've dragged the fitting into the Quickbar, right? So you don't have to search...?
My container is NOT imploding! It's just a bit upset that it only sees cheap crap. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
638
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 03:15:00 -
[139] - Quote
Pointless and bad change (on the missile names).
They could have just as easily renamed the heavies as:
Widowmaker Thermal Heavy Missile Thunderbolt EM Heavy Missile Havoc Explosive Heavy Missile Scourge Kinetic Heavy Missile
Which would have ended up with the exact same "ease of figuring out which one does which damage type", while preserving the old names that everyone was used to.
Instead, they completely ignored our feedback thread and just pushed the change out - just like the old CCP that brought us Incarna.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=54444 |
Taipion
Operations Control United Pod Service
13
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 03:37:00 -
[140] - Quote
ASadOldGit wrote:I'll just add my 3 ISK worth.
Look at it from a different point of view. Imagine if you'd been playing since day 1 and all you ever knew for years was "EM torps" or "thermal heavies", then, out of the blue, CCP added fancy, exotic names, like "Scourge" and "Mjolnir" to the front of them. I GUARANTEE the forums would implode with the shear number of people complaining about the unnecessary clutter of these stupid "non-EVE" names. You would be right with this, but it was exactly the other way round. Full stop.
Scrapyard Bob wrote:Pointless and bad change (on the missile names). They could have just as easily renamed the heavies as: Widowmaker Thermal Heavy Missile Thunderbolt EM Heavy Missile Havoc Explosive Heavy Missile Scourge Kinetic Heavy Missile Which would have ended up with the exact same "ease of figuring out which one does which damage type", while preserving the old names that everyone was used to. Instead, they completely ignored our feedback thread and just pushed the change out - just like the old CCP that brought us Incarna. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=54444
I would have LOVED the heavy missile names, but taking 2 names from torps, and 2 random-fingerpointing-in-a-dictionary... yes, that makes sense, as much sense as ignoring the community, again.
Welcome to Incarna 2.0!
(This wont stop here)
|
|
Aggressive Nutmeg
96
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 03:50:00 -
[141] - Quote
Many posters here are exhibiting signs of Trauma!
I'm here all week folks. Try the fish. Never make eye contact with someone while eating a banana. |
Taipion
Operations Control United Pod Service
13
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 03:59:00 -
[142] - Quote
Aggressive Nutmeg wrote:Many posters here are exhibiting signs of Trauma! Thanks Caption Obvious! We all have Trauma now, lots of it, and no, this is no way funny.
|
Mars Theran
EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance
95
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 05:33:00 -
[143] - Quote
Siiee wrote:I'm not a big fan of them at all. I will dearly miss my bloodclaw missles.
The new AB/MWD names are 10 flavors of bland, and they're no less confusing than they were before to boot. Is prototype better than experimental? Improved is "obviously" better than prototype, experimental is probably better than limited. But the whole thing makes just as much sense backwards as it does forwards.
..snip..
Actually, I think they're more confusing than before. At least they could have kept it consistent. Maybe it is and I'm just not seeing it.
I haven't looked at the missiles yet, but having the type all represented by the same name seems fine to me. I'm not immediately particular to the "Trauma" tag, but I'm already getting used to it.
Are you sure Improved is better than Prototype; seems to me Prototype might be the best thing if Dust 514 is any indication. They use Standard > Advanced > Prototype over there if I recall correctly.
Confirmed edit: "Dropsuits are classified as Standard, Advanced, and Prototype" |
Spineker
124
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 05:38:00 -
[144] - Quote
Like the missile change. Far easier to switch |
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
368
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 05:55:00 -
[145] - Quote
Taipion wrote:New Names! (for Missiles and Meta-Speed-Mods) Do you like them?
Yes, I do.
Names don't change gameplay. There are gameplay mechanics which need attention, I don't care about the naming of items until the latter is attended to.
The universe is an ancient desert, a vast wasteland with only occasional habitable planets as oases. We Fremen, comfortable with deserts, shall now venture into another. - STILGAR, From the Sietch to the Stars. |
Arcathra
Technodyne Ltd.
134
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 07:47:00 -
[146] - Quote
Black Dranzer wrote:Reading over the thread, I honestly can't comprehend what people are bitching about.
Naming conventions are being made simpler. It's not even a nerf to the game's complexity. It is LITERALLY a removal of flavor text in exchange for readability. How could any of you not support this? Is it simply because you're now going to have to memorize new names? Hey, guess what! If all meta levels get renamed and equalized, you'll only ever have to remember one prefix for each meta level! For 95% of your modules it'll just be {meta_prefix} {module_type}. That's a hell of a lot easier than the current clusterfuck naming convention we've got going.
Repeat after me: Change is not evil. Change can be good. Sometimes, a change will inconvenience us slightly but pay off far more in the future. This is one of those times. Memorize the four missile names and move on. Hell, I already have, I think. What is it, Trauma, Nova, Mjolnir.. Inferno? Or something? There, I now know the damage type for every single missile, rocket and torpedo in the game, even if I've never seen it before. Glorious! Yes, more please. Fixed prefixes for meta levels. Bring it on. Bring it ALL on. Exactly my thoughts.
I can somewhat understand why people like the old names. They had some kind of flavour to them. But all they did was confuse players, especially new players. The old names certainly were cool but claiming that they added complexity to the game is a bit off here. They added complications not complexities.
As a non caldari pilot I never memorized all the missile names and I had to search and look at the details of every missile type to find the ones I needed. When my caldari buddy asked me what missiles he needed for a mission I always said something like "Take explosive missiles." or "Use kinetic ones.". Never read or heard anyone refering to the actual names of the missiles just because it's unpractical to list every missile name when you are talking to gang members who use different sizes and types of missiles. Now everything is much clearer.
Of course this means we have to get used to the new names. But whining to not change something just because you are "used to it" as it was before is a silly argument. You vets are always telling everyone to HTFU. How about you trying that by yourself sometimes?
Quote:Do you like the new names?
Was it a good step?
Was it necessary?
The names could have been a bit better, but I'm okay with them.
Yes, it was a very good step.
No, not necessary but very beneficial overall. |
Jano Kerensky
Clan Ice Raven Sons of Odin.
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 08:03:00 -
[147] - Quote
Renaming missiles was a horrible idea for sake of the universe and its immersion they shouldn't all have the same damage subtype name it makes torps sound weak versus rockets. Who makes A Torpedo called a trauma (it sounds like a missile full of nanobots that repair a ship that its fired at) it doesnt sound powerful enough to be a torp the old names were worthy of torpedo/cruise missile damage types it sounded powerful and the smaller ammo types had names of equivalent power you knew a thorn wasnt as good as a Juggernaut. I understand that it was for simplifying missiles but i believe it went to far and ruined immersion. The names are so bad im probably going to stop flying caldari the ammo just doesnt feel like its even worth shooting anymore, guess ill go shield tank minmatar. The new module names aren't as terrible as the new missile names if its worth mentioning if they roll back the missile changes but keep the others. |
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
220
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 15:14:00 -
[148] - Quote
Black Dranzer wrote:Razin wrote:Confirming all Trauma items have the same and/or slightly different stats. Their new naming system divides them into two categories: Missile Type and Damage Type. The missile types vary enough to warrant different names for each class of missile, but missiles WITHIN a class don't vary that much, which is why all cruise missiles are called cruise missiles. The damage type, on the other hand, does not vary at all. It's always a four-way switch. You never get weird combinations, it's not something that can be modified with skills or modules or bonuses. Kinetic missiles are always kinetic missiles. Now they are named as such. The amount of damage and other stats are modified by skills and bonuses. What's your point? Nothing you posted invalidates the original analogy. |
Taipion
Operations Control United Pod Service
14
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 17:14:00 -
[149] - Quote
Black Dranzer wrote:Reading over the thread, I honestly can't comprehend what people are bitching about.
Naming conventions are being made simpler. It's not even a nerf to the game's complexity. It is LITERALLY a removal of flavor text in exchange for readability.
And you really think, less flavour is ther way to go? (oh, and it IS a nerf to the games complexity)
Why dont you go an switch EVE for a browser game then?! |
OlRotGut
10
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 17:14:00 -
[150] - Quote
Taipion wrote:Razin wrote:OlRotGut wrote:Razin wrote:Petrus Blackshell wrote:The game and its mechanics (and thus its complexity) are absolutely unaffected by the change in name. Complexity in terms of game mechanics is unaffected. However, complexity in terms of simulation of an immersive world sure is. It is unreasonable to believe that in such a geographically and culturally varied world as EVE all of the manufactured missiles are named the same just because they carry similar warheads. It's just one more break in suspension of disbelief. If CCP were'n concerned with variety (as current changes clearly aren't), why not just append the damage type to the old name and be done with it? This change could have been made to satisfy both the usability concerns and the fluff concerns with such a small amount of additional effort on the part of CCP devs... Instead, CCP happened with a vengeance. Simulation of an immerse world? 1000+ ships in a space station that obviously isn't scaled to handle that amount? planets that do not orbit the stars in the solar system? magically re-spawning pirates and 'roids? i mean i could go on and on... that is a weak stance to the renaming argument for certain. You forgot to mention submarines. Yes, the world of EVE already suffers from a high number of inconsistencies and 'approximations'. That's no reason to add another item to that list. @OlRotGut: Yea, EVE is not fully immersive, so why bother if we destroy what is left?!? Dear OlRotGut, please gb2wow, thanks.
umad bra?
Get over it. It's not going to go back to the way it was. Here's a tissue.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |