Is there anything people won't ***** about?

Simplicity isn't the same as convenience.

The "lady" may be right, even if 'her' statement is a bit of a strawman, but your method of achieving convenience through extreme simplification leaves a lot to be desired. Instead of giving everything the same generic name you should have tried to make the current unique names more meaningful. You've had several posts in the test forum section describing exactly how something like that could be done. Yet you decided to ignore them.

Its threads like these and some of the posts contained here that makes me almost 100% sure that most of the trolls in this forum are indeed CCP alts venting out frustration that they build up when having to deal with some people.

Please stop confusing tedium for complexity. Also it should be clear at this point that there are many who like the general direction this is going. There are plenty of actual mechanics to make the game complex, and that is where the complexity should be. Simple naming does not mean a simple game.

This argument works just as much against you as for you. To each of us it's the other one that seems to be on the wrong side of the road. I'm a fan of complex systems made from meaningful choices, but not tedious systems requiring investment of time or effort with no real return. Having to stall for a moment because I can't remember what the explosive heavy missile is called is not an asset to the game experience. I'd rather be fitting/flying/planning/playing the game in general than memorizing nondescript names with no real scheme. Tedium is boring, memorizing random things is tedious. It's not intelligent, thought provoking or beneficial. We I need less of that.

If I had a complaint about gameplay complexity, your comment would be valid. Memorization of launcher type = x ammo with y variations is fine, because it's meaningful. Having to go beyond that for a separate name with no overall scheme for every combination of damage and missile type does not. Now we have a very clear (Faction)[damage](T2 type)[missile type] scheme which preserves function but unifies naming. It has to do with making sense, and to me this does. It has nothing to do with "style of play." You CANNOT play this game on any meaningful level without interacting with others. And confusing naming schemes don't create MEANINGFUL interaction. If you want to be smug about your memory skills, you can do THAT on your own.

The less coding they have to do, the better. Code is tricky and dangerous stuff, especially in a beastie the size of Eve.

Now I admit that there was a strange sense of pride in knowing the meta levels of a few classes of modules based on their name alone. But when you DON'T memorise that stuff, poking around in the info tab is quite the pain.
And hardwirings are just bloody terrible, most of them offer no clue in their name as to what they do. Thank god EFT sorts them by their purpose, and not their implant slot.

In another game they might have solved this issue with mouseover tooltips that summarise what each item does, but just renaming them is an easier solution.

Since when is a more logical naming policy = dumbing down?

I really like this change. Having to go look at the attributes tab to see if its a meta whatever item is just annoying, nothing more nothing less. There isn't anything to learn about that.

So, tell me something. Without looking at the EVElopedia (and without opening the Info window), tell me why I would want a 'Noble ZET' implant over a 'Gnome KYA'. What slot do they go in? Are they for shields, armor, weapons? How much of a boost do they give to whatever it is they boost?

The new naming system is a one-glance system telling me all of that, so I don't have to open each and every implant on the market just to see how much of an increase I'd give my skills, or to make sure I'm not spending three million ISK on an implant that I've already got.

Saves time, saves money, saves annoyance.

I understand your point, but you don't seem to be seeing mine.

I'll give you an example from my own experience.

I was working under contract several years ago to test a system that was designed to make a computer easier to use for someone with (limited mobility/visual impairment/hearing impairment). Basically, you could make the screen bigger, you could have the computer verbalize what's on the screen, and so forth.

One of the options that was included in the software package we recieved was to enable a 'visual dynamic keyboard'.

Care to tell me what that might be? It's 'visual', so...it looks like a keyboard. It's 'dynamic', so...I guess it changes over time, or something....and it's a keyboard.

Instead of calling it something simple and logical, like 'on-screen keyboard' (which is exactly what it was), all of our reference material used a much more confusing and obscure term. It sounded jargon-ish and overly 'clinical', scaring away the people that may actually need it.

It's the same with the current implant names. Hell, I can quote nearly verbatim from movies and books that I haven't seen in six years, but I'll be darned if I can tell you what a Squire implant will do, or a Gnome KYA, or a Noble ZET without looking it up in the Info screen.

I really mean this with the greatest of respect (I seriously do), but your proposed solution adds three steps (hold the button down, click the 'compare' tool, select a preset from a menu) when only one (change the names to make them less obscure) is needed to solve the problem, and takes one-third the time to install.