Irori Neri
Pain Arising
0
   |
Posted - 2012.02.29 23:47:00 -
[1] - Quote
I'm posting in support of implant name changes but against module name changes to standardize based upon meta levels. Additionally, I support the removal of the terms "reactive" and "reflective" and their replacement with Kinetic and Explosive, but not with the replacement of the full name (N-Type for Prototype).
I think the current names add significant flavor to the game and that EVE would be lesser without them. I realize that's a bit of a double standard, since I support replacement of the Implant names, but it is my belief that most of the T1 module names add flavor, while most of the implant names only add technobabble. Additionally, since implants are (for most) significantly more "fire and forget" and swapped out far less often, it makes sense to me to have their names more clearly reflect their function since I will not be swapping them in and out on a daily basis and developing a familiarity with them like I might with ship mods.
I have a recommendation for solving some of the complexity a bit, though.
- First off, I believe there should be a UI option to toggle display of the meta level for modules. So N-Type Kinetic Hardener or whatever could be toggled to display as N-Type Kinetic Hardener (Meta4) or something similar.
- Second, and this one would be a big one, I think the market search should be a bit more intelligent. If someone searches for "armor hardener", then I think all the armor hardeners should appear in the list, even the ones that don't have the words "armor hardener" in their name. Or, "medium railgun" return all the cruiser sized railguns, etc.
- The comparison tool is great. However, one step further along that path would be a simple right-click option for "Compare Similar". Pressing Compare Similar should automatically open up the comparison tool with the selected module and all of its variations already added in, sorted by meta level, with the relevant columns checked. So, for railguns, I'd want things like range, damage multiplier, etc. For all comparisons made this way, it should be smart enough to only include the columns with differentiation; if all the afterburners in the comparison use the same amount of grid, then grid use shouldn't be in the compare.
I'm sure there are a hundred more ways that clarity could be added without taking away flavor. And while removing complexity sounds like a good goal, it's really not always. When a system is complex, and you come to understand that system, there is a sense of achievement involved with that. If a system is complex and too difficult to learn, that is a problem. Removing the barriers to greater understanding that system is good, because then you enable folks to learn about this world of internet spaceships and conquer that complexity. I think the best way to put it is... help people help themselves; dont' just do the work for them. |