Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
|
CCP Guard
C C P C C P Alliance
1823
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 15:59:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Gnauton and friends have been working on the naming structure for modules and implants in EVE. They've taken in your feedback, made some changes to the strategy accordingly, and now they want to talk to you about the future of module names in EVE.
Please go here to read about what they've been up to, and if you don't have some feedback for us...my name ain't Guard! CCP Guard | EVE Community Developer |
|
Derth Ramir
Hellion Evolution
12
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:01:00 -
[2] - Quote
First |
ChromeStriker
The Riot Formation
59
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:06:00 -
[3] - Quote
yays \o/
- Nulla Curas |
Karl Planck
134
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:07:00 -
[4] - Quote
ffs there goes the kb's again. While I appreciate the implants renaming, its still confusing as hell with the irrelevant corp name. But w/e.
However, changing the mod names, again, is just silly. I get that your streamlining it, but...sigh. If you don't like it, you should go and ride your Emo high-horse all the way back to WoW.
|
Steijn
Quay Industries
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:09:00 -
[5] - Quote
will you please stop dumbing the game down with these stupid generic name changes. |
Karbowiak
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
42
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:10:00 -
[6] - Quote
For the love of god, release a new DB Dump _BEFORE_ implementing all these changes..
i beg of you |
Akrasjel Lanate
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
613
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:11:00 -
[7] - Quote
Why are you doing this |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
1921
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:11:00 -
[8] - Quote
ze blog wrote:Assault Missile Launchers have become Light Missile Arrays
Standard Missile Launchers have become Light Missile Launchers
This seems like a bad idea to me. Every other launcher has the word launcher in it, so why is the assault launcher a special case? Why not just call it a rapid/fast light missile launcher, since that is exactly what it is and would fit better with the new launcher naming convention. |
Mark726
Project Compass Holdings
37
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:12:00 -
[9] - Quote
"Light missile arrays" v. "light missile launchers"? That sounds as confusing, if not moreso, than the previous names, but maybe that's just me. Why give assault missiles the one outlier in terms of naming conventions by having them come from arrays instead of launchers? I'm playing EVE and I'm Still Alive
Author, EVE Travel Author, EVE Lore Survival Guide |
Karash Amerius
Sutoka
38
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:15:00 -
[10] - Quote
What about module groups that do not have 4 levels of meta items, such as smartbombs, shield hardeners/amps, and propulsion mods? Will new items be seeded to fill up the gaps?
|
|
Chris Roberts
Point of No Return Waterboard
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:16:00 -
[11] - Quote
Please dont 100% standardise the module names, search functions are already difficult and clunky.
I do like the idea of making it easier, but maybe you could have a Meta name set for say tanking modules, A different name set for weapon, Another for electronic warefare modules. Just to keep a litle flavour in there.
Implant names I like the changes, they could do with being far easier to understand. |
TheButcherPete
Titan Inc. Bloodbound.
74
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:16:00 -
[12] - Quote
How many times do I need to say this?
If something is experimental, it is also a prototype.
STOP DUMBING DOWN MY GAME YOU F'KING SODS. :3 I am Petey :3 Petey is smexy Smexy is Pete |
Djakku
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
57
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:16:00 -
[13] - Quote
this just makes the game more boring and less- sci fi... |
Akrasjel Lanate
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
613
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:18:00 -
[14] - Quote
Djakku wrote:this just makes the game more boring and less- sci fi...
|
Ebos Detauck
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:18:00 -
[15] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:Assault Missile Launchers have become Light Missile Arrays
Standard Missile Launchers have become Light Missile Launchers
This seems like a bad idea to me. Every other launcher has the word launcher in it, so why is the assault launcher a special case? Why not just call it a rapid/fast light missile launcher, since that is exactly what it is and would fit better with the new launcher naming convention.
I agree on this too. Aside from that the changes are quite welcome. Course, you probably are upsetting the scammer dynamic. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
252
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:19:00 -
[16] - Quote
Nice.
Maybe Rapid light missile launcher, for the assault missile launcher though?
I'd say ib4griping, but I think I'm a little too late FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
adopt
Enlightened Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
270
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:19:00 -
[17] - Quote
KEEP HEAVY MISSILES AS THEY ARE PLEASE!! Shadoo > Always remember to fit Cynosural Field Generator I, have 450 Liquid Ozone in your cargo and convo a friendly Pandemic Legion member if you have a capital or super capital ship tackled. |
Efraya
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
80
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:19:00 -
[18] - Quote
Excellent changes here, especially with the hard wirings. Love the Meta 1 - 4 change also. +1 CCP
WSpace; Best space. |
KFenn
Percussive Diplomacy PERCUSSIVE PIZZA TIME DIPLOMACY
159
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:20:00 -
[19] - Quote
Steijn wrote:will you please stop dumbing the game down with these stupid generic name changes.
Hasn't this been debated to death already? It's not 'dumbing down the game'. It's just removing pointless obscurity. It's a painstaking task to either remember the name of all the modules, or to Right-click > Show info on everything to show meta levels.
Personally I welcome this change, less time ******* around with modules is more time to pew. You know, the part of the game that has actual difficulty? Commanding Officer of the Treacle Tart Brigade SLAPD Director |
Hera Chawla
Imperial Guardians The Aurora Shadow
9
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:20:00 -
[20] - Quote
I want my Scourge missiles, and Cold-gas Arcjet Thrusters back! |
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
2690
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:21:00 -
[21] - Quote
I approve renaming the Civilian Mining Laser to Chribba's Modified Civil Mining Laser.
/c
|
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
151
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:22:00 -
[22] - Quote
about meta 1-4 items:
doesnt sound very logical to me
limited is better than upgraded ? weird stuff happening at CCP
about skill hardwirings:
awesome !
about amplifiers:
ok
about launchers:
very weird stuff, think again about assault missile names please |
Hayaishi
Aperture Harmonics K162
63
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:22:00 -
[23] - Quote
ze blog wrote:Assault Missile Launchers have become Rapid Light Missile Launchers
FTFY |
Emma Royd
Maddled Gommerils
84
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:22:00 -
[24] - Quote
yaay, more updates for Eve, Evemon, jEveassets, Evementat, EFT, and anything else that lists items, for the love of god, why didn't you do this when you changed the missile names, it's not like it's difficult to do to change a name and description in a database table
I feel sorry for the writers of all the software that runs alongside eve having to change things yet again because CCP couldn't get their act together.
|
Sarmatiko
541
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:23:00 -
[25] - Quote
Light Missile Arrays? Not Rapid Light Missile launchers? Devblog was in pipeline for too long or this is the last minute change?
Also I dont like additional word in the "Adaptive Invulnerability Field".
Hardwiring name change is excellent for sure. |
Ulair Memmet
ORIGIN SYSTEMS
19
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:26:00 -
[26] - Quote
Please don't do this
You are not making the game easier or user friendly by doing this. You are just making it generic. If you want to make it easier for people to find out, which items are better at a glance, then please sort the things on the market by meta level instead of alphabeticly... That way the t1 items are on top, followed by the other metas and then t2. You'd of course need to group the items, so that e.g. all 350mm railguns are together.
So first sort by group, then by meta level
Please!!!
Besides alot of variety in module names I especially don't want the awesome target painter names to be gone (And if you don't know what i mean, just LOOK AT THEM)
The launcher changes seem unnecessary aswell
Edit: this excludes the hardwirings. Those really were confusing as hell |
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
1746
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:26:00 -
[27] - Quote
While I'm sure we all have quibbles about particular name choices, the overall goal of consistency is a laudable one, and Gnauton deserves some +1's for taking on this non-sexy but useful project.
+1 Re-Elect Trebor to the CSM - because I have not yet plumbed the depths of my inherent masochism!
My CSM Blog |
Sentient Blade
Walk It Off Imperial Ascension
267
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:27:00 -
[28] - Quote
Meta Level 1: Upgraded Meta Level 2: Limited Meta Level 3: Experimental Meta Level 4: Prototype
The order makes no sense to me.... You don't upgrade something and then have it limited. Also, experimental and prototype mean the same thing.... it's just a mass of "words".
I think you guys need to go back to the drawing board =\ |
Skye Aurorae
No Bull Ships
183
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:27:00 -
[29] - Quote
Meta 2 => Limited
MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL
Consider 'Enhanced' instead. Skye Aurora is a 7 year old Girl Who Wants to be on the CSM! Unfortunately, the Lawyers say you have to be 21, so.. Vote for Scott Manley / Skye Aurorae for CSM 7 An Expert in Dealing with Childish Arguments Over Toys. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=68506 |
Squizz Caphinator
Woopatang Happy Endings
31
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:27:00 -
[30] - Quote
Quote: Heavy Assault Missile Launchers have become Assault Missile Launchers
Assault Missile Launchers have become Light Missile Arrays
Standard Missile Launchers have become Light Missile Launchers
There is no easily discernible difference between Light Missile Arrays and Light Missile Launchers. This will be confusing for everyone, new or old.
Typically when critiquing something I like to come up with suggestive alternatives, however, I can't think of anything that will fit well with your renaming scheme. http://evewho.com - Alliance and Corporation Member Listings http://evechatter.com - Free Alliance and Corporation forums for all. |
|
Eugene Spencer
Rodents of Unusual Size
91
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:28:00 -
[31] - Quote
Yeah the invulnerability fields - I'm not sure it needs both adaptive and invulnerability in the name. One or the other!
I prefer Rapid Light Missile Launchers too.
And I'm not sure why the implants need their manufacturer's name - I've always found that confusing.
Other than that, all looks good to me! I have a specific comb for my beard. |
Entity
X-Factor Industries Synthetic Existence
91
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:29:00 -
[32] - Quote
This is an official statement of the undisputed Lord of the Items:
Meta (or in fact, any) module name changes =
I do, however, support the implant renames because those random letter and number combinations have absolutely no relation to the buff they provide :) GòªGûæGûæGûæGûæGûæGûæGòæGûæGûæGûæGòöGòùGûæGòæGûæGòæGûæGòöGòùGûæGòªGòæGûæGòöGòùGòöGòªGòùGòöGòù GòæGûæGòöGòùGòöGòùGòöGòúGûæGòöGòùGòáGûæGûæGòáGûæGòáGòùGòáGò¥GûæGòæGòáGûæGòáGò¥GòæGòæGòæGòÜGòù Gò¬GòÉGòÜGò¥GòæGûæGòÜGò¥GûæGòÜGò¥GòæGûæGûæGòÜGò¥GòæGòæGòÜGò¥GûæGò¬GòÜGò¥GòÜGò¥GòæGûæGòæGòÜGò¥ Got Item? | [topic=6504]EVE API?[/topic] | [topic=6501]Cache?[/topic] |
Sprite Can
82
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:30:00 -
[33] - Quote
This is not dumbing the game down. The only downside to this is a week or so of all of the third party programs updating all of the names. This is a very good thing that needed to happen years ago. Get over it. Refreshing Lemon-Lime~ |
Sidias
SQUINGEL Nulli Tertius
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:30:00 -
[34] - Quote
Here you are trying to improve the naming conventions and yet you are not keeping a similarity between Assault Missile Launchers. Why not call the Heavy Assault Missile Launchers -> Heavy Missile Arrays ? That way it will stick with your naming convention for Light Missile Arrays. |
Draciste
Boiians Hedonistic Imperative
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:30:00 -
[35] - Quote
Djakku wrote:this just makes the game more boring and less- sci fi...
+1 |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
252
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:31:00 -
[36] - Quote
Sidias wrote:Here you are trying to improve the naming conventions and yet you are not keeping a similarity between Assault Missile Launchers. Why not call the Heavy Assault Missile Launchers -> Heavy Missile Arrays ? That way it will stick with your naming convention for Light Missile Arrays.
Except they don't launch heavy missiles. They launch assault missiles.
That's one of the confusions that's being ironed out. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
35
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:31:00 -
[37] - Quote
KFenn wrote:Steijn wrote:will you please stop dumbing the game down with these stupid generic name changes. Hasn't this been debated to death already? It's not 'dumbing down the game'. It's just removing pointless obscurity. It's a painstaking task to either remember the name of all the modules, or to Right-click > Show info on everything to show meta levels. Personally I welcome this change, less time ******* around with modules is more time to pew. You know, the part of the game that has actual difficulty?
Won't market search become trickier, though?
|
Kata Amentis
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
38
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:34:00 -
[38] - Quote
Quote: Assault Missile Launchers have become Light Missile Arrays
...
All scripts in the game have had the word "script" added to their names, so a simple market search for "script" will now bring up all scripts available in the game, irrespective of market group.
Apply logic used in the scripts bit to the launcher bit... please.
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Maybe Rapid light missile launcher, for the assault missile launcher though?
Had the same though... but you beat me! |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
600
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:34:00 -
[39] - Quote
sounds good at first glance
but please also fix the small medium laser confusion. thanks a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Anja Talis
Mimidae Risk Solutions
21
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:35:00 -
[40] - Quote
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of veterans suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced |
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
1923
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:36:00 -
[41] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:While I'm sure we all have quibbles about particular name choices, the overall goal of consistency is a laudable one, and Gnauton deserves some +1's for taking on this non-sexy but useful project.
+1
Bullshit. It's only non-sexy, since he chose to use boring ass names in the naming. It should have been seen as an opportunity to add sexyness and coolness to the names, while also improving on the functionality. It never had to be one or the other.
PS. I refuse to believe that names like trauma and limited can be considered cool or sexy names by any sane person. |
Steijn
Quay Industries
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:37:00 -
[42] - Quote
Anja Talis wrote:I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of veterans suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced
veterans who CCP know they have a bit of leeway with in been able to p*** them off as they are already 'caught' by the Eve bug.
To me, things like this are just something that the person who thought them up is doing, in order to jusify having a job. |
matarkhan
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Cascade Imminent
24
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:38:00 -
[43] - Quote
Boooooooo......
Enigma? Character? Style?
Anyone? |
Sun Liping
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:38:00 -
[44] - Quote
to keep the momentum going, would you devs please change your names according to rank-department-taskforce-job title? :-) |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
963
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:39:00 -
[45] - Quote
Do you want to come and rename all my excel sheets and 3rd party programs also?
You just caused weeks worth of painless work for me and you continue to do so. Renaming the missiles was bulljunk and this just keeps going.
Stop nerfing the game. Make meta levels visible in market groups and put compare tool to neocom, but ffs stop renaming the stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Get |
Brannsy
The Horizon Initiative Joined Brotherhood
9
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:41:00 -
[46] - Quote
I really disagree with this, it seems to be removing flavor from the game, the names have been the same for so long I see no sudden need to change them, besides, how hard is it to just Show Info?
The WoW kiddies will never like EVE so there is no point in dumbing it down for them. It just makes the game less flavorful for the people that will. |
Hotaru Yamato
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
22
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:41:00 -
[47] - Quote
I don't see why people are against this idea, it makes sense. Complexity for complexity's sake just hurts newbies. |
Tynian Erath
APEX ARDENT COALITION NEM3SIS.
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:42:00 -
[48] - Quote
Okey the implants I get lost in sometimes so sure maybe they need to be clearer on what they do and were they go. But the meta names and the launcher renaming as well that I don't get. Why are you so damn adamant at "fixing" something that aint broken? |
Drew Solaert
University of Caille Gallente Federation
60
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:42:00 -
[49] - Quote
I'm joining the "Limited?" crowd. Not suitable given its a Meta 2 and the Meta 1 is "Upgraded" something like Enhanced would be a lot better, and more importantly clearer.
I'm going to miss the old module names though. They really added a sense of flavour to the game, made the universe feel that much bigger. |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
963
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:43:00 -
[50] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:While I'm sure we all have quibbles about particular name choices, the overall goal of consistency is a laudable one, and Gnauton deserves some +1's for taking on this non-sexy but useful project.
+1 So you want to come and fix my spreadsheets too ?
Besides I got no idea what I am manufacturing any more when I do some random missiles. Before I knew exactly what I did but someone had to break it. This entire thing is bs... -1 respect to you also.
Get |
|
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
963
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:45:00 -
[51] - Quote
One more post just to make myself clear:
ROLL BACK THE ORIGINAL NAMES AND DO SOMETHING USEFUL
Get |
Palovana
Inner Fire Inc.
112
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:45:00 -
[52] - Quote
All this but you're not fixing the "Trauma"?
You're already changing the hardener names to match damage type so do this:
Trauma Light Missile => Kinetic 'Bloodclaw' Light Missile Mjolnir Rocket => EM 'Gremlin' Rocket etc. Please support: export of settings in editable format
Your stuff goes here. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
600
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:46:00 -
[53] - Quote
I would suggest this name scheme: Meta 1: lame Meta 2: boring Meta 3: ++ber Meta 4: ++ber expensive Meta 5: mostly cheap, okish a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics Darkmatter Initiative
94
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:46:00 -
[54] - Quote
Can we drop the "I" from the meta 1-4 names? N-Type Thermic Hardener I to Prototype Armor Thermic Hardener instead of Prototype Armor Thermic Hardener I. The "I" makes no sense in these names as there won't be a tech 2 version of them. |
Marlona Sky
EntroPrelatial Vanguard EntroPraetorian Aegis
508
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:47:00 -
[55] - Quote
lol at the spreadsheet warrior rage!
These are good chances CCP. It is amusing to see people complain about the learning curve and the very same people still complain when you change the names of things so they actually are easier to learn and search for.
"It's too hard! It's too easy! MAH SPREEDSHHEEEETTZZZ!!!"
|
TheButcherPete
Titan Inc. Bloodbound.
75
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:48:00 -
[56] - Quote
Palovana wrote:All this but you're not fixing the "Trauma"?
You're already changing the hardener names to match damage type so do this:
Trauma Light Missile => Kinetic 'Bloodclaw' Light Missile Mjolnir Rocket => EM 'Gremlin' Rocket etc.
quoting for greatness :3 I am Petey :3 Petey is smexy Smexy is Pete |
Nirnaeth Ornoediad
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
52
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:49:00 -
[57] - Quote
In general this is very good, but it would be very helpful if CCP released a tool to help kill-board and other API users. Even a global find/replace SQL script with paramterized table names would help. |
Catho Sharn
Don't Die Interstellar Enterprises
21
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:50:00 -
[58] - Quote
If you want to perform a name change worth something, get rid of the damn single-quotes in item names.
|
Salvia Olima
FREE GATES HUN Reloaded
27
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:51:00 -
[59] - Quote
I believe the sole reason was that CCP Gnauton been asked what he's been done lately and he came up with the idea to dumb the game down to a disgusting level of monotonious module names, no matter how much it will take from the overall feeling of the game. It will be done, he said it.
I was outrageous even with the Trauma missile renaming (it does not sound good, as it is completely silly), not to mention the experimental/prototype wtf. Most of us who are playing from years know every module in the game by name. With this renaming plan Gnauton takes that away from us. A very bad decision - but a man wants to keep his job.
Yet it can be solved without generating more bittervets: please make an optional patch, so one who wish to play with the old names should still play with it. Killmail generating can be done with the new dumbed names. But I want my bloodclaw missiles back, and I want Catalyzed Cold-gas Thrusters back, with all the others. And you do not want another Jita siege. |
Kane Plekkel
The Necronomicons
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:52:00 -
[60] - Quote
Quote:Heavy Assault Missile Launchers have become Assault Missile Launchers Assault Missile Launchers have become Light Missile Arrays Standard Missile Launchers have become Light Missile Launchers Siege Launchers have become Torpedo Launchers
Ehhh. I don't think it will address all of the confusion. Here's my thoughts:
[Frigate] Rocket Launcher -> Rocket Launcher (no change) Standard Missile Launcher -> Light Missile Launcher (I support this change)
[Cruiser] Assault Missile Launchers -> Light Missile Array (DO NOT APPROVE!*) Heavy Missile Launchers -> Heavy Missile Launcher (no change) Heavy Assault Missile Launcher -> Assault Missile Launcher (supported**)
[Battleship] Cruise Missile Launcher -> Cruise Missile Launcher (no change) Siege Launcher -> Torpedo Launcher (I dig this)
*Main issue here is that with this change, the Heavy/Heavy Assault confusion will move to LML/LMA. And really, "Missile Array" doesn't really describe how it differs from the typical Launcher, unless the Array physically holds more missiles. Personally, I say do away with it entirely, but I'm one man.
**This gets my support ONLY if AMLs turn into LMLs or disappear entirely, as it will not do to have AMLs and HAMLs, all fitted by the same ship class. |
|
DJ Obsidian
RONA Legion RONA Directorate
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:54:00 -
[61] - Quote
Ok a few things,
you should rework meta names again. meta 1 and 2 are too similar and meta 3 and 4 are similar also so they could get confusing.
And i agree that renaming everything DOES make the game too generic.
example.
n-type explosive hardner sounds a lot cooler than prototype explosive hardner.
mega afocal partical tachyon stream sounds 100x cooler than prototype tachyon beam.
WHAT YOU SHOULD DO IS
Review naming scheme on a case by case basis.
step 1. start with guns, and missiles.
ASK THE PLAYERS WHAT ARE BETTER NAMES
Do not implement this automatically without player review first. Of course you have not learned and skipped this part already.
So scrap your renamming stuff all of it. just flat out trash it.
Go back and make a new dev blog with suggested names for modules, and seperate it into different sections maybe with some PDF goodness with what name changes you want to make. Also add on a suggestion box or a form where players can mail back their thoughts better than the forums such as surveys and lots of comment forms.
Finally
Quote: Hardwiring - Eifyr and Co. 'Rogue' HY-2.5, which goes in implant slot 6 and gives an 18% bonus to Warp Speed, is now Eifyr and Co. 'Rogue' Warp Drive Speed WS-618.
How about Eifyr and Co. 'Rogue' WDS-618 Never hesitate to use acronyms.
RENAMING Modules with a generic naming scheme takes away flavor from the game. It's like replacing all the icecream on the shelf with vanilla and variations of vanilla. its just too plain. |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
964
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:56:00 -
[62] - Quote
Salvia Olima wrote:I believe the sole reason was that CCP Gnauton been asked what he's been done lately and he came up with the idea to dumb the game down to a disgusting level of monotonious module names, no matter how much it will take from the overall feeling of the game. It will be done, he said it.
I was outrageous even with the Trauma missile renaming (it does not sound good, as it is completely silly), not to mention the experimental/prototype wtf. Most of us who are playing from years know every module in the game by name. With this renaming plan Gnauton takes that away from us. A very bad decision - but a man wants to keep his job.
Yet it can be solved without generating more bittervets: please make an optional patch, so one who wish to play with the old names should still play with it. Killmail generating can be done with the new dumbed names. But I want my bloodclaw missiles back, and I want Catalyzed Cold-gas Thrusters back, with all the others. And you do not want another Jita siege. ^^ QFT
Get |
Zevas
Infinite Origins Shadow Cartel
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:57:00 -
[63] - Quote
Implant changes are nice.
The Meta level names suck and/or have the wrong ordering. Each level needs to inherently suggest an improvement. The current proposed names do not.
I would do something like this:
Meta Level 1: Experimental Meta Level 2: Limited Meta Level 3: Upgraded Meta Level 4: Advanced
EDIT: Swapped them around a bit.
Agree with post further down. Limited needs a new name. |
Rixiu
SnowNiggs.
104
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:58:00 -
[64] - Quote
Not sure about the prototype/experimental/upgraded. In my world prototype and experimental is basically the same thing and it's a bit confusing.
|
Adolf Hilmar
Republic University Minmatar Republic
76
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:59:00 -
[65] - Quote
CCP's documentation is terrible. The least you could do is not go around breaking all the decent third-party docs. |
Huey Pewy
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:59:00 -
[66] - Quote
1. I agree that those new meta names are a bit weird.
Prototype = experimental Upgraded: all those meta modules are upgrades of the T1 module. Limited: doesn't that refer to the quantity of an item? I don't see how it could explain the stats.
2. I absolutely like the Hardwiring renames! I ignore them because they are so confusing atm. :p
3. You use a part of the old name with other modules. For example:
'Arbalest' Assault Missile Launcher = Prototype 'Arbalest' Light Missile Array Compact 'Limos' Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I = Limited 'Limos' Assault Missile Launcher I
I like that, why don't you use this on every module you rename. It would make both parties happy i think. For example:
Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters = Limited 'Cold-Gas' 1MN MicroWarpdrive I |
DJ Obsidian
RONA Legion RONA Directorate
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:59:00 -
[67] - Quote
Some other thoughts.
There is nothing wrong with missile launcher meta names. everyone know that 'arbelast' is meta 4 and malkulth's are meta 1 etc...
If you really want to redo names on anything do it on freaking lasers. those are the most annoying to distinguish. oh and again Dont dumb down the game with easy names. |
Skye Aurorae
No Bull Ships
183
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:03:00 -
[68] - Quote
Zevas wrote:Implant changes are nice.
The Meta level names suck and/or have the wrong ordering. Each level needs to inherently suggest an improvement. The current proposed names do not.
I would do something like this:
Meta Level 1: Limited Meta Level 2: Augmented Meta Level 3: Upgraded or Enhanced Meta Level 4: Advanced
Get rid of limited all together, limited fells lesser than plain vanilla.
Also, augmented it nice, but it might cause confusion with the Augmented drones. Skye Aurora is a 7 year old Girl Who Wants to be on the CSM! Unfortunately, the Lawyers say you have to be 21, so.. Vote for Scott Manley / Skye Aurorae for CSM 7 An Expert in Dealing with Childish Arguments Over Toys. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=68506 |
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
12
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:04:00 -
[69] - Quote
Quote:we've come up with a standardized global scheme for Meta Level 1-4 modules That's the way to go! However, the names ... there are better combinations ... see above
Quote:Heavy Assault Missile Launchers have become Assault Missile Launchers
Assault Missile Launchers have become Light Missile Arrays
Standard Missile Launchers have become Light Missile Launchers
Siege Launchers have become Torpedo Launchers Now, all you have to do is rename Heavy Assault Missile to Assault Missile and you'll end up with
* Rockets and Rocket Launchers * Light Missile and both Light Missile Launchers and Light Missile Arrays * Assault Missiles and Assault Missile Launchers * Heavy Missiles and Heavy Missile Launchers (since you didn't change anything here, right?) * Cruise Missiles and Cruise Missile Launchers * Torpedos and Torpedo Launchers
Do you see the beauty of a well elaborate naming? |
TheLostPenguin
Surreal Departure
16
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:05:00 -
[70] - Quote
The missile change went badly because you trashed the functionality of being able to find what you wanted quickly and easily, not because you didn't talk about it enough. If you wanted to be helpfull fixing that (ie rolling back the names) would be a great start.
As for this attempt at breaking more stuff the changes to launchers looks like taking something slightly confusing and replacing it with something confusing... not sure what you think is gained there. For the tanking modules all that was needed was to insert the existing reflective/reactive/whichever into the name of all the meta mods, so a market serach could pull up all the variants applicable to a certain stat, completely renaming them with most basic generic format seems like taking out flavour for the sake of it.
Agree with others here, 'limited' being better than 'upgraded' is just full potato, at least with experimental vs prototype we already have meta 4 guns with prototype in the name so it makes a little more sense. (Although changing 'experimental' to something else certainly wouldn't hurt, personally I'd go with limitedGåÆimprovedGåÆupgradedGåÆprototype)
Now for the implants, and at least here you've identified a genuine case where too much flavour obscures functionality, if for no other reason than most people spend less time looking at/handling implants than they do other modules so the names tend not to sink in so easily, it's still a fairly clunky mouthfull for the names but at least the new system there follows some form of logic so +1 for that, this will actually help more people for less loss of flavour
Sadly you seem to have missed the naming of small/medium lasers, puttimg 'medium' named guns onto frigs causes more confusion in new players than any other naming in EVE, tbh the only 2 areas that badly needed attention to the names are implants and lasers, from the point of view of improving usability/consistency, somewhat surprised you haven't picked up on those. |
|
Daedalus II
Helios Research Combat Mining and Logistics
89
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:06:00 -
[71] - Quote
I'd like to have the meta levels something like this:
Meta Level 1: Advanced Meta Level 2: Enhanced Meta Level 3: Experimental Meta Level 4: Upgraded
Why in this particular order you might ask? Well because it's in alphabetical order, and as such it will sort very nicely in all programs, but especially in the market. |
Fantocis
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:10:00 -
[72] - Quote
NO NO and NO! You are doing it wrong!!!
idea of simplifying names is grate but you are over reacting and going wrong direction. Get along CCP, don't throw things like this at ppl that fly around in internet space ships!
What you did with missiles already was misunderstanding now you screw launchers? Whats is wrong with HEAVY and just Assault missiles? Why you change things that do not change anything?
Siege and torpedo OK because that was confusing
Meta Level 1: Standard
Meta Level 2: Upgraded
Meta Level 3: Experimental
Meta Level 4: Prototype
for hardeners, yes its confusing and it must be changed, but please leave Reactive, Magnetic, etc. because complexity is middle name of EVE if you want easy tasks go and play WOW or any thing like that and dishonor you family.
When you changed names for missiles that was terrible :) i mean Trauma missile? what? wtf you where thinking about what, a trauma? Mjolnir cold name, Nova hot name, Inferno just explodes by him self and then trauma? Shame on you, please change kinetic missile name because its hilarious
so please CCP pimp my ride! |
Alex Cortex
EVE University Ivy League
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:12:00 -
[73] - Quote
Not related to the topic per-se, but I want to point out that the first 'N' in Gnauton is upside-down. While you're fixing names, you might want to fix that one too, it's really bugging me. Thanks. |
Camios
Minmatar Bread Corporation
68
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:13:00 -
[74] - Quote
Nice. Needless complexity is needless. |
agrajag119
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
8
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:14:00 -
[75] - Quote
Global prefixes for meta items is simplifying things *too* far. Sure it's easy for a newbie - but the utility there is good for the short while it takes to learn the names.
After you've figure this out - your changes kills quick search and find capabilities. Either make market searches more granular (limit to slot / type / something else) or make the meta prefixes unique to item groups groups, hull upgrades have their prefixes, turrets have their own set (all turrets), missiles have theirs, and so on.
Add a little complexity and flavor back to keep things feeling unique and different. What you're proposing is the plain black and white label on everything plan. It's boring and monotonous. |
Callic Veratar
Power of the Phoenix
163
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:16:00 -
[76] - Quote
Some points:
- 'Adaptive Nano Plating' should be 'Adaptive Invulnerability Plating' - EM Ward should be replaced with EM Deflection - Thermic Dissipation should be replaced with Thermic Deflection - What are the 'Supplemental' Deflection Amplifiers? Supplemental was not a classification you listed in the blog |
Axl Borlara
T.R.I.A.D
28
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:18:00 -
[77] - Quote
Implant names
Great! Someone listened and had the common sense to keep the interesting part of the names AND make the overall name functional.
Meta 1-4
Oh dear. I'll repeat what others have said.
Meta Level 1: Upgraded - fine. It's upgraded so better than normal Meta Level 2: Limited - Limited is not an upgrade. It would be worse than the standard version. So bin that one. Meta Level 3: Experimental - experimental is not necessarily better. Also sounds like it might break. Meta Level 4: Prototype - means pretty much the same as experimental.
The good news is that it's not too late to fix it. Think of four names which all mean better than standard. For bonus points, order them sensibly. Failing that, how about adding the meta level to the name? m1, m2, m3, m4 etc?
Missile launchers
Good effort, but having just one type called Array rather than Launcher is wrong. |
Katsina
Alien Affliction GIANTSBANE.
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:18:00 -
[78] - Quote
Meta Level 5: Advanced Meta Level 4: Improved Meta Level 3: Kindergarten Meta Level 2: Window Licker Meta Level 1: CCP
I made my listing from the top down. I see the point in making more uniform names for a better reference-able and searchable database over-all. This will solve many problems with developmental naming conventions not always matching and having several duplicate names with either a GÇÿ1GÇÖ there or not there and make it easier for lazy people to understand the game. This just seems like a lot of work going into something that does not make the game a better play experience or balanced for the majority of the players. So instead, CCP is dumbing down the game to the lowest common troglodyte level to make it easy enough for new people, idiots and lazy people to play.
|
Ceratin
Dark-Rising
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:19:00 -
[79] - Quote
No need whatsoever for these stupid name changes, the whole point of an rpg is for stuff to have weird and wonderful names so you have to do abit of research to find out what your getting is better. The average eve player is not a 4 year old kindergarten pupil
Honestly who comes up with this ****? is there someone at ccp thats never played an mmo that just sits and thinks all day, i know lets ruin this, maybe you could just rename all the mods...
meta 1 heavy missile launcher :=> **** mod meta 2 heavy missile launcher xxxx name :=> **** mod meta 3... etc etc
heavy missile launcher II :=> good mod
Tada, no1 has to invest 5 seconds working out which is the best cos only one mod is called the 'good mod' right?? |
Marlona Sky
EntroPrelatial Vanguard EntroPraetorian Aegis
509
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:19:00 -
[80] - Quote
Just want to echo what some have said here and others have suggested before. Please add the ability to sort items by meta level. I think if you did that in conjunction with these name changes most of these over reactors in this thread will be appeased.
|
|
Zaragis
Ubuntu Inc. Lonely Maple Conglomeration
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:19:00 -
[81] - Quote
Meta Level 1: Upgraded Meta Level 2: Limited Meta Level 3: Experimental Meta Level 4: Prototype
Wtf?!?!?!!!???!!!!!
Upgraded is better than limited ? And Experimental and prototype are the SAME thing!! |
Anvil44
Independent Traders and Builders MPA
56
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:20:00 -
[82] - Quote
Grey Stormshadow wrote:Do you want to come and rename all my excel sheets and 3rd party programs also?
You just caused weeks worth of painless work for me and you continue to do so. Renaming the missiles was bulljunk and this just keeps going.
Stop nerfing the game. Make meta levels visible in market groups and put compare tool to neocom, but ffs stop renaming the stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At least it is painless
The idea is great and worthy in my opinion. I always hated the old names, who has time to learn all the nuances? Well, I didn't, too busy using my limited time for Eve to actually play. I do think something other than Limited could be used, though it is sooo sexy, almost as sexy as trauma...ummm blunt force trauma...
And i believe Prototype is generally used for the first try at something, while experimental is used to make variations of something. Though I can find no backup for that, that is how I see it. I would can the name Prototype for this reason.
Standardization works for me. +1 I may not like you or your point of view but you have a right to voice it. |
Jax Slizard
Celerna Talocan United
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:22:00 -
[83] - Quote
You know what would be awesome and useful? If you made the names for higher meta level items start with letters later in the alphabet. That way they would automatically sort in meta order when sorted by alphabetical order.
As in, if meta 1 was Fantastic, meta 2 was Great, meta 3 was Stupendous and meta 4 was Wonderful, then a sorted list would look like:
Fantastic Torpedo Launcher (Meta 1) Great Torpedo Launcher (Meta 2) Stupendous Torpedo Launcher (Meta 3) Wonderful Torpedo Launcher (Meta 4)
Now obviously these are terrible terrible terrible names, and the order of fantastic and great appears to be wrong, but you get the point. |
Buzzmong
Aliastra Gallente Federation
144
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:23:00 -
[84] - Quote
Blimey CCP, what's going on in the office over there? The volcanic fumes finally made it past the filters for the aircon units?
Upgraded -> Limited -> Experimental -> Prototype
Makes no logical sense at all as "Limited" implies that an item is worse than its stablemates.
If anything, it should be a logical progression:
Experimental / Prototype -> Modified -> Enhanced -> Improved / Upgraded -> T2.
As for the launchers, renaming Standard Launchers to Light Missile Launchers and Siege to Torpedo are the only ones that make sense.
Missile "Array"? No.
It should be Light Assault Missile Launcher and then you can keep Heavy Assault Missile Launcher.
Props for finally changing the implant names though, they were bonkers hard to remember. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5095
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:23:00 -
[85] - Quote
As long as the search function allows for non-exact searches (i.e. you can enter "limited launcher" in the search field and find all Meta-2 launchers, no matter how those two words appear in the name), it will be all fine.
I can somewhat sympathise with the feeling that applying this to everything will make things a bitGǪ boring, but you can probably fix that by having 3-4 different meta-naming schemes (where's my MkIGÇôMkIV scheme!? Stop hogging it, nasty evil Iteron!). I also agree that the names themselves could probably be better when it comes to conveying the increasing ability and efficiency. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Shandir
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
26
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:24:00 -
[86] - Quote
Fantocis wrote:If its upgraded in meta 1 from what then it its upgraded? from item that do not exists in eve game? It`s do not make sense CCP Gnauton because if it is UPGRADED it should be Meta 2 then its experimental because its like BETA tested but not common and then its prototype
You do realise that Meta Level 1 is not, in fact, the base form of an item? That's Meta Level 0. Learn 2 EVE.
I think the name changes are good, for the most part, and agree that the complexity in naming (Especially implants) is not depth, just extra legwork.
I agree that LMA is not an ideal name as it is not clear why this is different from a launcher. Perhaps Light Missile Launcher Array (ie an array of LMLs)
I don't know that you needed to change Reactive/Reflective/etc, they were consistent and relatively clear.
Since it seems not to be clear to most people that Limited means Limited Edition, you need to either rename it to make this clear, or come up with a new Meta 2 name.
I think Experimental vs Prototype is fine. For me, prototype is 'prototype for production soon' whereas experimental is 'trying out new stuff, nowhere near production'
PS: The spreadsheet tears are hilarious. |
Midnight Hope
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
27
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:25:00 -
[87] - Quote
OMG! Not again! You already caused severe "trauma" with the missile changes and now you mess with the launchers too? Why not rename T2 ammo to short range and long range, after all conflag, barrage, hail, null, void is waay too confusing anyway.
Now for some constructive criticism. The meta names are backwards:
Meta Level 1: Upgraded Meta Level 2: Limited Meta Level 3: Experimental Meta Level 4: Prototype
Why is the Meta 2 'limited' when it is obviously better than the Meta 1? Each level should imply that it is better than the next.
Also, experimental and prototype...which one is better? After all, both words are almost synonyms.
Why the Light Missile "Array"?? Every other launcher is called a "launcher", why are these arrays?
The only positive, well thought out, changes are the implants names. |
PinkKnife
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
65
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:26:00 -
[88] - Quote
I approve greatly of these changes. The hardwireing in particular was a god forsaken mess, having to show info on everyone to get an idea of what they did was a nightmare.
The only concern I have is in the launcher names.
For turrets it is easily recognizable what are short range and what are longer range cannons. Pulse = short, Beam = long.
Wouldn't it make more sense to separate out the launchers in the same way? At least in the market view.
First by size Large Medium Small
Then have that broken down by range,
Large > Torpedos/Cruise Missiles Mediums > Assault/Heavy missiles Small > Rockets/ Light missiles
Thus you're launcher names would be
Meta X Torpedo launcher meta X Cruise Missile launcher
Meta X Assault Missile Launcher Meta X Heavy Missile Launcher
Meta X Rocket Launcher Meta X Light Missile Launcher.
The only real changes are to make the array thing a bit less confusing and keep the naming convention of the medium size launchers. I never flew Caldari so the only experience I have are the Khanid ships which all use HAMs.
Basically the naming convention between Assault missiles and Heavy assault missiles is confusing. Rather than changing the launcher descriptor, why not simply use a different prefix. |
sakurako
The Circle G00DFELLAS
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:27:00 -
[89] - Quote
DJ Obsidian wrote:Ok a few things, you should rework meta names again. meta 1 and 2 are too similar and meta 3 and 4 are similar also so they could get confusing. And i agree that renaming everything DOES make the game too generic. example. n-type explosive hardner sounds a lot cooler than prototype explosive hardner. mega afocal partical tachyon stream sounds 100x cooler than prototype tachyon beam. WHAT YOU SHOULD DO ISReview naming scheme on a case by case basis. step 1. start with guns, and missiles. ASK THE PLAYERS WHAT ARE BETTER NAMESDo not implement this automatically without player review first. Of course you have not learned and skipped this part already. So scrap your renamming stuff all of it. just flat out trash it. Go back and make a new dev blog with suggested names for modules, and seperate it into different sections maybe with some PDF goodness with what name changes you want to make. Also add on a suggestion box or a form where players can mail back their thoughts better than the forums such as surveys and lots of comment forms. Finally Quote: Hardwiring - Eifyr and Co. 'Rogue' HY-2.5, which goes in implant slot 6 and gives an 18% bonus to Warp Speed, is now Eifyr and Co. 'Rogue' Warp Drive Speed WS-618. How about Eifyr and Co. 'Rogue' WDS-618 Never hesitate to use acronyms. RENAMING Modules with a generic naming scheme takes away flavor from the game. It's like replacing all the icecream on the shelf with vanilla and variations of vanilla. its just too plain.
ccp do a review with the player base, come on they know whats best for the game they would never upset the player based and have players riot in jita
i agree that these name need relooking at
|
Xercodo
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Dark Matter Coalition
918
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:28:00 -
[90] - Quote
Should be:
Light Missile Launcher Light Assault Missile Launcher Heavy Missile Launcher Heavy Assault Missile Launcher The Drake is a Lie |
|
ORCACommander
Astral Synthetics
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:28:00 -
[91] - Quote
thank you for destroying the flavor if how superficial that we have in items you say that was not your intention but that is the result
still i do welcome the change in hardwiring name scheme old was a real mess. although i still wonder why you use the word inherent as that implies the capsule had it to begin with
your orders for the meta seem a little counter intuitive limited to me means in this context as being held back or of inferior use and should be replaced by a new name prototype should go before experimental since prototype is usually closer to a final copy
YOU WILL NOT REPLACE SIEGE WITH TORPEDO
i can kinda agree with the name change on hams but now them being just a assault missile does not make them seem like heavy missile counterparts. |
Syri Taneka
Dopehead Industries Broken Chains Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:28:00 -
[92] - Quote
I don't like the idea of HAMS becoming AMs and AMs becoming Light Arrays.
Also, for the love of god do NOT take away the Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron. That name is sacred. SACRED. |
Anigo Montioa
Spec Pvpers Inducing Chaotic Yarrs Concordiat Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:32:00 -
[93] - Quote
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:Djakku wrote:this just makes the game more boring and less- sci fi...
Agreed. |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
577
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:34:00 -
[94] - Quote
I support everything but the "arrays". Those are just terrible.
Also, with regards to spreadsheet tears: If you used the typeid (e.g. 8025) instead of the name of the item (e.g. Compact 'Limos' Assault Missile Bay I), this wouldn't be a problem. The typeid is the "unique ID" of the item that will never ever change. Basing your spreadsheets on the name is, from CCP's and from a coding standpoint, as foolhardy as basing them on the damage modifier of the mods.
CCP, please release the database dump sooner this time. Breaking every 3rd party tool because they can't upgrade without your DB dump is dumb. Rifterlings - Small gang lowsec combat corp specializing in frigates and cruisers. US Timezone veterans and newbies alike are welcome to join us. Come chat in the "we fly rifters" in-game channel. |
Valeo Galaem
New Eden Advanced Reconnaissance Unit Sentient World Observation and Response Directive
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:34:00 -
[95] - Quote
For consistency all of the "Thermic Dissipation Field" items should be "Thermic Deflection Field" like the rest of the damage types. |
Nonnori Ikkala
Love for You Forsaken.Empire
44
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:35:00 -
[96] - Quote
Flavorful names are a plus, but names that effectively convey information are double plus extra good, so I support your efforts! And thanks for letting us know in advance for this iteration. |
Fantocis
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:38:00 -
[97] - Quote
Shandir wrote:Fantocis wrote:If its upgraded in meta 1 from what then it its upgraded? from item that do not exists in eve game? It`s do not make sense CCP Gnauton because if it is UPGRADED it should be Meta 2 then its experimental because its like BETA tested but not common and then its prototype You do realise that Meta Level 1 is not, in fact, the base form of an item? That's Meta Level 0. Learn 2 EVE.
Hell you fast ;) that was changed in 2 sec after posting when i realized that forgot meta0
shame on me ill go stand in the corner |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
252
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:38:00 -
[98] - Quote
Petrus Blackshell wrote:I support everything but the "arrays". Those are just terrible.
Also, with regards to spreadsheet tears: If you used the typeid (e.g. 8025) instead of the name of the item (e.g. Compact 'Limos' Assault Missile Bay I), this wouldn't be a problem. The typeid is the "unique ID" of the item that will never ever change. Basing your spreadsheets on the name is, from CCP's and from a coding standpoint, as foolhardy as basing them on the damage modifier of the mods.
CCP, please release the database dump sooner this time. Breaking every 3rd party tool because they can't upgrade without your DB dump is dumb.
And if you do this ^^^, then all you'll need to update is the sheet containing the data for the vlookup
Oh look, I supply such a sheet on my site, and as I use it in my own spreadsheets, I'll be keeping it up to date.
Though to be honest, most of the time I have any heavy lifting to be done? I use a database. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Pierced Brosmen
Priory Of The Lemon
42
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:39:00 -
[99] - Quote
I like the changes to the implants cause with excetpion to a few of them, they are confusing as hell to figure out what they do by looking at the names.
However, I'm against the dumbing down of the module names... Why should everything be standardized and boring?
Also.. I would really hate to see the names of meta target painters go.... they have such gullible acronyms
Quote:Partial Weapon Navigation = PWN Peripheral Weapon Navigation Diameter = PWND Parallel Weapon Navigation Transmitter = PWNT Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron = PWNAGE |
Keras Authion
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
63
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:41:00 -
[100] - Quote
+1 for simplifying the names so it's easier for noobies to find.
-0.1 for losing some of the flavour but maybe it's better to have useability before the uniqueness. Maybe you could include the lost flavour in the item description so it becomes a part of the background rather than vanishes completely from the lore.
As it has been mentioned before the light missile array is sub-optimal. Light missile launcher array or the rapid light missile launcher would be better. |
|
PinkKnife
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
66
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:44:00 -
[101] - Quote
Also, LOL at all the bitter vets crying foul of something so ridiculous as naming conventions.
"Not the names of my items, nOOoooOOo"
If the names of items is what kept EVE "deep" for you, then you're either very easily entertained or don't know the definition of the word.
Depth != needlessly confusing naming conventions or obscurely large learning curve. |
Vertigo Ren
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:44:00 -
[102] - Quote
Zevas wrote:Implant changes are nice.
The Meta level names suck and/or have the wrong ordering. Each level needs to inherently suggest an improvement. The current proposed names do not.
I would do something like this:
Meta Level 1: Experimental Meta Level 2: Limited Meta Level 3: Upgraded Meta Level 4: Advanced
EDIT: Swapped them around a bit.
Agree with post further down. Limited needs a new name.
Agreed, Limited doesn't seem to fit at all in there.
Meta 1 : Standard Meta 2 : Experimental Meta 3 : Upgraded Meta 4 : Advanced
|
Syri Taneka
Dopehead Industries Broken Chains Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:44:00 -
[103] - Quote
Valeo Galaem wrote:For consistency all of the "Thermic Dissipation Field" items should be "Thermic Deflection Field" like the rest of the damage types.
Except you don't deflect heat, you dissipate it.
If you want to go like that, then it should be:
EM Resistance Thermic Dissipation Kinetic Deflection Explosive Absorption |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3328
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:47:00 -
[104] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=62254 ill leave this here since it take to long to boil the entire argument down.
I would like to add that if you do go the meta theming arrage them a bit.
1 Enchanced - means you made some tweaks to get better performance 2 Upgraded - The fact you had to go out and replace parts to get better performance. 3 Prototype - Is basically the mass production variant before release. 4 Experimental - Not ready for the world or the world isnt ready for it.
This however... doesnt make in alphabetical order (oh noes)
So altenratively this is a generic list of useable words in alpha order
0 [_] Blank Space to force sort it to have it at the start of the list Advanced Augmented Boosted <- Meta 1 Nomation Converted <- Meta 1 Nomination, Sounds like no major engineering was required to improve performance Developed <- Meta 2 Nomination Enchanced <- Meta 2 Nomination, Sounds like some thought went into increasing performance Engineered <- Meta 3 Nomination, Sounds like alot of money and thought went into increasing performance Enriched Evolved Expanded Experimental <- Meta 3 Monimation, Once against sounds like money and time went into it. Innovated <- Meta 3/4 Nomation, Sounds like major investements where made to make these Improved Refined Perfected <- Meta 4 Nomation, Seriously only the obessed with would try to name something this confident it is so. Progressive Prototype <- Meta 4 Nomation, well it sounds cool but i have to agree dont use this if you use experimental. Upgraded Ultimatium Then you interject flavor names in partial or whole.
[Meta Name][Flavor/Faction Name][Module Name][Tech Mark]
Perfected Carbine 150mm Artillery Cannon I Caldari Navy Torpedo Launcher I Enginnered Scout's 425mm Railgun I
Then go around and smash alot of the longer multiple flavor names into smaller ones to keep the names small.
Also go back and redo the afterburners/mwd if you go with the above plan
Innovated Arc-Jet 100MN Afterburner I
This I strongly belive is the best of all worlds.
Also change the light missile array into something different, it still needs the launcher name in it but the light missile must be included.
The Rapid Light Missile launcher idea was good but has no indication it goes on larger ships.
Light Missile Battery Launcher however does.
|
wallenbergaren
University of Caille Gallente Federation
39
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:47:00 -
[105] - Quote
Good job renaming Assaults Launchers to "arrays" That makes a whole ******* load of sense Not
No other launcher is called an array. So much for consistency. And why not just let HAMs be HAMs? |
Tacct
The NightClub Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
6
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:48:00 -
[106] - Quote
Completely opposed to everything except the hardwiring changes.
Quote:"I'm currently spearheading an initiative to rename those of EVE's modules and implants whose names have been deemed too confusing by a fearless cross-departmental cadre of game designers, UI designers & content developers." I'm sorry, shouldn't things like these be changed when they are deemed too confusing by the players. The simplification of names just takes variety away from the game.
Side note, I'll never understand how people get paid for work like this, and then come up with work that looks like they spent 2 minutes on it. I mean almost everyone here has pointed out experimental = prototype... how does the person getting paid to come up with these names not realize this. |
Atossa Exior
The Back Yard Twilight Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:49:00 -
[107] - Quote
TheButcherPete wrote:How many times do I need to say this?
If something is experimental, it is also a prototype.
Edit: Inappropriate language removed, CCP Phantom
A prototype is a first round, proof of concept where as something is experimental it's in a larger testing arena (more specailized tests, production, delivery, as well as testing of the item/functions).
An example: Protoype: Have Blue Experimental: YF-117 Final: F-117
Wikipedia on F-117 |
Jastra
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:49:00 -
[108] - Quote
Hotaru Yamato wrote:I don't see why people are against this idea, it makes sense. Complexity for complexity's sake just hurts newbies.
and yet everyone who is playing the game somehow coped, I don't see the point, I like obscurity and things not always making sense, i like finding weirdly named stuff and the community that has grown up around cataloguing said weird stuff...seems like there is other stuff that needs fixing before this, which doesn't actually need fixing |
Kerdrak
D00M. Northern Coalition.
14
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:52:00 -
[109] - Quote
I propose the following changes in order to make EVE-Online more accessible to new players:
- All weapons will be now lasers, but they will be renamed to "Guns". To allow some diversity while keeping the game not so hard for new players guns will be in 4 flavours:
-Fastest gun: the name implies the gun shoot very fast, but does the less damage. -Not so fast gun -Slow gun -Badass gun: the one that does more damage
- Microwarpdrives are hard to pronounce, thus are removed.
- Afterburner will be renamed to "Turbo". This way we recoup console players, more used to this word due to games like need for speed.
|
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
767
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:53:00 -
[110] - Quote
Don't get me wrong i think renaming needs to be done on some modules, but for the most part they already make sense in a lot of areas.
Everyone knows n-type is meta 4 for armor modules.
scouts are meta 4 for projectiles 'arbelasts' meta 4 missiles proto type for rails. etc.
But dont dumb it down too much we still need complexity. |
|
malaire
232
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:55:00 -
[111] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Just want to echo what some have said here and others have suggested before. Please add the ability to sort items by meta level. In what context? You can already do this for Items-hangar and any containers there. (Use List or Details view, right click to add Meta level column, sort by that.)
New to EVE? Don't forget to read: The Manual * The Wiki * The Career Options * and everything else |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3328
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:57:00 -
[112] - Quote
Also CCP let me levey the charge that I think we got entirely ignored last time with absolutely no feedback.
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
252
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:57:00 -
[113] - Quote
malaire wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Just want to echo what some have said here and others have suggested before. Please add the ability to sort items by meta level. In what context? You can already do this for Items-hangar and any containers there. (Use List or Details view, right click to add Meta level column, sort by that.)
Sort by meta level (and display it) on the market would currently be handy, with the morass of different names. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Droxlyn
TOHA Heavy Industries TOHA Conglomerate
62
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:57:00 -
[114] - Quote
Quote: Meta Level 1: Upgraded
Meta Level 2: Limited
Meta Level 3: Experimental
Meta Level 4: Prototype
These are literally backwards.
Your first design you make is: Prototype (Level 1) where you were just trying to get the darn thing working. Your second design is "Experimental" (Level 2) where you improved things, but still problems popped up. Your third design will be "Limited" (level 3) as in a limited run where you find the last hidden flaws. And your general run would be "Upgraded" from that limited design (Level 4) is when you have it running smooth and optimized.
Personally, the quality of the "Civilian" modules would match my mental mind of a "Prototype" and I wouldn't want to put Prototype crap on my ship. Prototype should be called "Standard" or "Basic" and not imply that it could fail at any moment like a prototype. Prototypes are Alpha versions of software and Experimental are Beta versions of software. I'm also hesitant to put anything on my ship labeled "Experimental" as that does not instill confidence in the quality of the module either.
These describe modules that won't simply fail randomly and convey an order that flows. Also, the modules alphabetize in Meta order: Meta Level 1: Basic Meta Level 2: Improved Meta Level 3: Special Meta Level 4: Ultimate |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
965
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:59:00 -
[115] - Quote
You people just don't see the forest from all the trees.
The names are not the problem. Lack of simple methods to display the items meta level (unless in hangar) is way worse stepping stone to newbs and annoying thing to old timers too. Specially the market should have meta levels visible on item groups. Items could be even sorted by their meta level in there.
Compare tool really needs to have easier way to access. It is pretty much only tool what you can use to compare different meta level items easily.
It wouldn't harm if you enabled the meta level column in hangar by default too as most people don't even know that it is there.
Get |
Tanaka Aiko
ICE is Coming to EVE Goonswarm Federation
45
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:59:00 -
[116] - Quote
god bless Gnauton ! <3
it's the best blog i saw since a while
i less reason to reprocess all your stuff on, the hangar to avoid headache ^^ (can another dev offer us multiple items instant sell order now please xD ?)
i'm a bit confused about "experimental" and "prototype" however. for me "experimental" is the best, while "prototype" would be meta 0 or meta -1 :P and for missile i like the "ligh missile" thing, but "array" don't seems clear for me, would prefer it to stay "assault" |
Katrina Bekers
Rim Collection RC Test Alliance Please Ignore
53
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:01:00 -
[117] - Quote
Mixed feelings about the dumbing down of meta level prefixes.
On one side, this throws away the need (that I had five years ago) to write down every godawful electron blaster and resistance plating and gyrostabilizer variant to try and understand which one is better than the other. Yay for WOW refugees.
(Still, adding the meta level column in pretty much ANY container, while being able to sort any list of items by that column, removed that need all on itself. Too bad it's still so horribly, horribly underdocumented. Too bad for the pubbies. I have my cans neatly showing me the meta level of whatever junk I come by. Whatever.)
On the other side, we're going to lose a lot of diversity and depth and sci-fi taste. Phased Muons, Rolled Tungsten, the late Cold-Gas, Prototype Gauss, Arbalests and Malkuths, YF12s, N-Types... Ohgod, the quantity of "flavor" on the verge of being lost forever is staggering.
I know I'd hate to live in a world where everything is either T2 or "Prototype"/"Experimental" (which is basically the same).
Just imagine we will soon lose the Target Painter meta names!!!
If you wonder why I want to RIP THE EYES OUT OF WHOEVER THOUGHT OF THIS, think of target painters.
If you're asking yourself why painter names are so special, you should uninstall EVE. Right about now. << THE RABBLE BRIGADE >> |
Kessiaan
Greater Order Of Destruction Happy Endings
90
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:02:00 -
[118] - Quote
Grey Stormshadow wrote:You people just don't see the forest from all the trees.
The names are not the problem. Lack of simple methods to display the items meta level (unless in hangar) is way worse stepping stone to newbs and annoying thing to old timers too. Specially the market should have meta levels visible on item groups. Items could be even sorted by their meta level in there.
+1
Changing the names won't accomplish anything except breaking every single killboard and 3rd party app for a week and confusing everyone including the noobs. Just like the last time.
The names are fine the way they are, better even than having all standardized names. What's truly needed is better methods to easily see meta level directly. My killboard - http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Kessiaan |
Orator de Umbras
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:02:00 -
[119] - Quote
An "experimental" module is different from a prototype. An "experimental" module uses "experimental" settings or a design to be used for testing. A "prototype" module is a module that has been through testing and is a "prototype" for the final production model. From a "prototype" you do some fine tuning, and then we would get the T2 complete module.
I would agree that the "Limited" and "Upgraded" names need to be swapped, so that Meta 1 is "Limited". From an RP perspective, you would "limit" a module to make it perform with fewer resources. Past that you would "upgrade" the module to perform better with fewer resources. Makes more sense.
As for the hardeners, it's about freaking time. I remember when I was new to the game, it took me a month to realize my armor hardeners needed to be activated, because I didn't know the different between active and passive. |
Xindi Kraid
The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est
6
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:02:00 -
[120] - Quote
I am liking some of what I am hearing, but I vote you keep the names of resistance equipment as magnetic, reactive, etc. it's not that hard to remember (reflective, that stops explosives right :P), since theres only four of them, but it brings flavor. |
|
TripStarrR
Bladerunners The G0dfathers
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:03:00 -
[121] - Quote
look i dont usually comment on these things but this naming convention is idiotic. I am all for making it easier to understand. but this is NOT easier to understand. Infact its as confusing if not worse!
let me help you because you seem to be stuck.
Heavy Assault Missile Launchers should stay as Heavy Assault Missile Launchers Assault Missile Launchers should stay as Assault Missile launchers Standard Missile Launchers should become Light Missile Launchers Siege Launchers should become Torpedo Launchers
Meta Level 1: Prototype
Meta Level 2: Experimental
Meta Level 3: Limited
Meta Level 4: Upgraded |
PinkKnife
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
66
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:03:00 -
[122] - Quote
Tacct wrote:Completely opposed to everything except the hardwiring changes. Quote:"I'm currently spearheading an initiative to rename those of EVE's modules and implants whose names have been deemed too confusing by a fearless cross-departmental cadre of game designers, UI designers & content developers." I'm sorry, shouldn't things like these be changed when they are deemed too confusing by the players. The simplification of names just takes variety away from the game. Side note, I'll never understand how people get paid for work like this, and then come up with work that looks like they spent 2 minutes on it. I mean almost everyone here has pointed out experimental = prototype... how does the person getting paid to come up with these names not realize this.
No, because the game is not a democracy and if so you'd never get anything done. Vets have no idea what the game is like for new players, and just as asking a majority to vote on the needs of a minority is wrong, as is asking vets about things that are driving away newbies.
Also, I'm willing to bet they've spent more time on the naming conventions than you have spent typing up this ridiculous bash of devs for no reason other than change is scary. |
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
247
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:06:00 -
[123] - Quote
Nothing against you personally CCP Gnauton, but this is possibly the stupidest (however not the most damaging) series of changes that CCP has ever done. You are not just dumbing down the game and making it more generic, you are also making things more confusing by making the modules names more similar and less colorful.
In the Test Server feedback forum you were presented with several methods to achieve your goal of making the nomenclature more informative and streamlined, yet preserving the color and history of the world. You ignored these, and now there isn't a single response from you in this thread.
In your blog you lament the fact that these changes went "uncommunicated" by CCP, yet you somehow don't understand that this particular communication has to be interactive and iterative to be useful. Otherwise you might as well just inform us of the changes in the patch notes. |
Steijn
Quay Industries
12
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:08:00 -
[124] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote: Vets have no idea what the game is like for new players,
so Vets just suddenly miraculously became Vets overnight? |
FeralShadow
Mom 'n' Pop Ammo Shoppe R.E.P.O.
65
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:08:00 -
[125] - Quote
Sweet, the meta 1-4 changes are a long time coming! |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
150
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:10:00 -
[126] - Quote
put away those ret*rded new missile names already!! Give us the old ones, I miss terrors and scourge, and dont name them all the same from rocket till citadel, for the love of god!! |
Klam
Church of Boom
17
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:11:00 -
[127] - Quote
Please don't take this as a personal attack on the devs involved...
But this whole idea is flawed. Changing there names is not just removing pointless obscurity. At this point it's removing a player skill in knowing these differences. Life does not dumb down these things. Life rewards those that know the difference. Changing the names removes an important layer of atmosphere.
IMHO the meta level tag was WRONG. Now it is the crutch that you are using to beat the game atmosphere to death. |
Ager Agemo
X-Factor Industries Synthetic Existence
41
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:12:00 -
[128] - Quote
people sure whine for dumb stuff a lot, this changes are welcome, there is no need to have overly complex names when the game itself is already the most complex game ever. this wont dumb anything. |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
577
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:12:00 -
[129] - Quote
CCP Gnauton needs to post so I can give him all my likes. Rifterlings - Small gang lowsec combat corp specializing in frigates and cruisers. US Timezone veterans and newbies alike are welcome to join us. Come chat in the "we fly rifters" in-game channel. |
Seismic Stan
48
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:15:00 -
[130] - Quote
Are there any plans to retain the character of the items by referencing their original names in their individual descriptions?
eg. "The Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive utilises catalyzed cold-gas arcjet technology to provide improved thrust, ensuring performance superiority over more traditional MicroWarpdrive solutions." Blogger on Freebooted. Co-Creator of Tech4 podcast and website. Author of Incarna: The Text Adventure. |
|
Colonel STFU
The Knights Templar GIANTSBANE.
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:15:00 -
[131] - Quote
Anigo Montioa wrote:Akrasjel Lanate wrote:Djakku wrote:this just makes the game more boring and less- sci fi... Agreed.
+1 MORE! |
Anika Mobius
Solid State Security Random Coalition of Corporations
8
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:16:00 -
[132] - Quote
The proposed names are completely backwards and make NO SENSE.
Upgraded < Limited < Experimental < Prototype (where "prototype" is the best)
WTF seriously? Reverse this and it starts to make sense.
Upgraded > Limited > Experimental > Prototype (where "upgraded" is the best) - A.Mobius |
Wiu Ming
Wrecking Shots Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:17:00 -
[133] - Quote
just effing no. to all of it.
Meta Level 1: Upgraded
Meta Level 2: Limited
Meta Level 3: Experimental
Meta Level 4: Prototype
and if you're gonna do stuff like this ^, at least make the higher meta level = better mod. THAT is a far more logical 'fix' then renaming all the crap we've known for years and learned just like everyone else. |
Cailais
Rekall Incorporated Sinewave Alliance
209
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:18:00 -
[134] - Quote
All sounds pretty boring and uninspired to me. If you want to jettison flavour and the sense of an exotic universe lets just get it over with: here you go
Modules:
Bestest Better Good Rubbish
Ships:
Biggest Big Average Small
Races:
A B C D
Job done.
C.
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
247
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:19:00 -
[135] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:Trebor Daehdoow wrote:While I'm sure we all have quibbles about particular name choices, the overall goal of consistency is a laudable one, and Gnauton deserves some +1's for taking on this non-sexy but useful project.
+1 Bullshit. It's only non-sexy, since he chose to use boring ass names in the naming. It should have been seen as an opportunity to add sexyness and coolness to the names, while also improving on the functionality. It never had to be one or the other. PS. I refuse to believe that names like trauma and limited can be considered cool or sexy names by any sane person. Completely agree. Way to miss the opportunity CCP. |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics Darkmatter Initiative
94
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:22:00 -
[136] - Quote
Fantocis wrote:NO NO and NO! You are doing it wrong!!! idea of simplifying names is grate but you are over reacting and going wrong direction. Get along CCP, don't throw things like this at ppl that fly around in internet space ships! What you did with missiles already was misunderstanding now you screw launchers? Whats is wrong with HEAVY and just Assault missiles? Why you change things that do not change anything? Siege and torpedo OK because that was confusing For meta levels it should be similar to this: Meta Level 0: Civilian Meta Level 1: Standard Meta Level 2: Upgraded Meta Level 3: Experimental Meta Level 4: Prototype for hardeners, yes its confusing and it must be changed, but please leave Reactive, Magnetic, etc. because complexity is middle name of EVE if you want easy tasks go and play WOW or any thing like that and dishonor you family. When you changed names for missiles that was terrible :) i mean Trauma missile? what? wtf you where thinking about what, a trauma? Mjolnir cold name, Nova hot name, Inferno just explodes by him self and then trauma? Shame on you, please change kinetic missile name because its hilarious so please CCP pimp my ride!
I support these meta name! It makes way more sense!
|
Szilardis
Phoibe Enterprises
9
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:24:00 -
[137] - Quote
I don't like this. It takes away a lot of the flavor of modules...it feels like it's dumbing/boring EVE down. I want my YT-8s and Pseudoelectrons. And keep HAMs, there's not much point to dropping the 'heavy'...
This change needs to be really rethought. |
Seismic Stan
49
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:27:00 -
[138] - Quote
I don't see the problem with using "trauma" for kinetic damage. Kinetic implies physical force, the result of which would be trauma to the affected object. "Trauma" may commonly be used in medical terms, but it isn't exclusive. Blogger on Freebooted. Co-Creator of Tech4 podcast and website. Author of Incarna: The Text Adventure. |
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
45
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:27:00 -
[139] - Quote
Hnnng. I have mixed opinions on these changes. Can't decide if I like it or not (besides the implant name changes, those are good!).
Seismic Stan wrote:I don't see the problem with using "trauma" for kinetic damage. Kinetic implies physical force, the result of which would be trauma to the affected object. "Trauma" may commonly be used in medical terms, but it isn't exclusive. Because fireing nausea missiles is less impressive than hellfire/inferno/PURGEWITHFLAMES missiles. /realises he just quoted mr.freebooted.
It's probably more about how trauma is a medical condition, not a force in itself. Gravitron missiles might be more apropriate? (caldari using gravimetric systems and whatnot). |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3329
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:27:00 -
[140] - Quote
Doh I forgot to use Civillian for Meta 0s.
|
|
Newbee
New-Roots
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:31:00 -
[141] - Quote
The hardwiring change is one of the few things I like about this. It really makes a lot of sense and they were confusing as hell.
All other changes for me feel like they are killing a big part of eve history that we have become so accustomed to
I remember my first time getting a 'malkuth' missile launcher and I would not have found it as cool if it had been an 'upgraded' one
Those specific names make items feel special and by making them all "one size fits all" even though it might be easier for some people it is really not worth losing that special feel in my opinion. I always felt like those names even if they are just technobableish added flavor to the game.
Also the missile launcher changes I have to agree with a few people that the "Light missile array" one sounds wrong
My point is keep the flavor of eve and have lots of technobableish cool names but also have good backstory for them. Don't make a boring name scheme that just names everything almost the same |
zcar300
SERCO Group
12
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:33:00 -
[142] - Quote
Limited should come before upgrade. Otherwise what is it an "upgrade" of? And why is the upgrade limited?
Experimental and prototype kinda sound like the same thing. Although I certainly don't think they should be the other way around. |
Ifly Uwalk
Concentrated Evil Mining For Profit Alliance
174
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:34:00 -
[143] - Quote
If you rename my holy PWNAGE the Statue gets it.
|
Klam
Church of Boom
17
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:38:00 -
[144] - Quote
Cailais wrote:All sounds pretty boring and uninspired to me. If you want to jettison flavour and the sense of an exotic universe lets just get it over with: here you go
Modules:
Bestest Better Good Rubbish
Ships:
Biggest Big Average Small
Races:
A B C D
Job done.
C.
Well put. |
Witchking Angmar
Perkele.
17
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:39:00 -
[145] - Quote
This is certainly the most mind-bogglingly stupid dev blog i have ever had the displeasure of reading. You sir deserve a swift and painful kick in the genital area for even mentioning such atrocities. |
TheLostPenguin
Surreal Departure
16
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:43:00 -
[146] - Quote
No replies from anyone at CCP yet? Well I guess your engagement with the playerbase was nice for the little while it lasted, we got a few nice devblog comment threads where the relevant CCP peoples actually gave a damn and posted, even if I didn't agree with what they were saying at least they made an effort to discuss/defend their ideas.
Guess we're right back to head-in-the-sand "Screw you lot" CCP again |
Ajita al Tchar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
78
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:46:00 -
[147] - Quote
-1 CCP Gnauton. Also, there's a backwards letter in your nametag. Is that supposed to give some warning about ability with names..?
"Light Missile Array" makes it impossible to find said item by searching for "launcher".
The meta naming schema makes no sense. Did you know that Meta 4 items are better than Meta 1 items? Well, within the new meta naming paradigm that isn't obviously the case (it wasn't obviously the case with the old names either, but I thought the goal was to fix that..?). Please use names that are less synonymous and that people can agree on as immediately conveying the "this item is better than that one" idea. And please for the love of god find a way to make the names descriptive, helpful and NOT BORING.
Invulnerability Fields were Invulnerability Fields rather than [DamageType] Hardener because they provide multiple damage type resists. Calling these multi-resist hardeners Invulnerability Fields was pretty clever and made sense. Calling a single resist item Invulnerability Field is kind of lame because each individual hardener only patches one resist, thus not exactly adding to your overall invulnerability (I can drive a train of EM missiles through someone who's shield tanking in a T1 ship without resist bonuses, fitting 5 kinetic shield hardeners... They would be as vulnerable as if they didn't have any hardeners at all.). Don't conflate the two types of shield hardeners by calling them all "Invulnearbility Fields". They are not.
Trauma is still a bad replacement name for kinetic damage. Scourge is so much more awesome.
I'm not against change as such, not at all. The old naming conventions were not that great for many things. But the new names aren't really an improvement that I'd personally be proud of. Pretty underwhelming, and falls short of the goal of making the names sensible. Playing the game sometimes might help...
Good job with the implants though, they were a total clusterfuck. Now they are much more clearly named and the names aren't devoid of sci-fi flavor. Please do the same for the other things that got an unflattering makeover. |
Shin Dari
The Vendunari Warped Aggression
33
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:46:00 -
[148] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=62254 ill leave this here since it take to long to boil the entire argument down.
I would like to add that if you do go the meta theming arrage them a bit.
1 Enchanced - means you made some tweaks to get better performance 2 Upgraded - The fact you had to go out and replace parts to get better performance. 3 Prototype - Is basically the mass production variant before release. 4 Experimental - Not ready for the world or the world isnt ready for it.
This however... doesnt make in alphabetical order (oh noes)
So altenratively this is a generic list of useable words in alpha order
0 [_] Blank Space to force sort it to have it at the start of the list Advanced Augmented Boosted <- Meta 1 Nomation Converted <- Meta 1 Nomination, Sounds like no major engineering was required to improve performance Developed <- Meta 2 Nomination Enhanced <- Meta 2 Nomination, Sounds like some thought went into increasing performance Engineered <- Meta 3 Nomination, Sounds like alot of money and thought went into increasing performance Enriched Evolved Expanded Experimental <- Meta 3 Monimation, Once against sounds like money and time went into it. Innovated <- Meta 3/4 Nomation, Sounds like major investements where made to make these Improved Refined Perfected <- Meta 4 Nomation, Seriously only the obessed with would try to name something this confident it is so. Progressive Prototype <- Meta 4 Nomation, well it sounds cool but i have to agree dont use this if you use experimental. Upgraded Ultimatium Then you interject flavor names in partial or whole.
[Meta Name][Flavor/Faction Name][Module Name][Tech Mark]
Perfected Carbine 150mm Artillery Cannon I Caldari Navy Torpedo Launcher I Enginnered Scout's 425mm Railgun I
Then go around and smash alot of the longer multiple flavor names into smaller ones to keep the names small.
Also go back and redo the afterburners/mwd if you go with the above plan
Innovated Arc-Jet 100MN Afterburner I
This I strongly belive is the best of all worlds.
Also change the light missile array into something different, it still needs the launcher name in it but the light missile must be included.
The Rapid Light Missile launcher idea was good but has no indication it goes on larger ships.
Light Missile Battery Launcher however does.
I would go with:
1 Tuned 2 Upgraded 3 Experimental 4 Perfected
And this: Quote:[Meta Name][Flavor/Faction Name][Module Name][Tech Mark] Is good stuff. |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3329
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:52:00 -
[149] - Quote
We'd tried arguing this last time and ccp's in charge of the project never replied back acknoledging anything.
Reason why I made the alpha list was to make it easier on the sorting but one must carefully pick from the enitre list in order of increasing not so awsome to awsomest.
|
Witchking Angmar
Perkele.
17
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:52:00 -
[150] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:Caldari Navy Torpedo Launcher I
Faction is not T1 and should not be marked as such.
|
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3329
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:57:00 -
[151] - Quote
Witchking Angmar wrote:Nova Fox wrote:Caldari Navy Torpedo Launcher I
Faction is not T1 and should not be marked as such.
You're saying it would be impossible for the navy to roll out a tech 2 launcher? Its a high meta leveled tech 1 module regardless. Tech 2 skills have NO impact on said launcher and as far as the database is concerned its a tech 1 item.
It may be never we would ever see tech 2 faction mods but who knows. I rather have the foundation prexisting and work done ahead of time instead of going back and redoing more work.
|
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
578
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:59:00 -
[152] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:You're saying it would be impossible for the navy to roll out a tech 2 launcher? Not impossible, but pointless. "T2" technology is made to be attuned to capsuleers. The navies do not use capsuleers in their army, and will not ever as capsuleers are loose cannons. Rifterlings - Small gang lowsec combat corp specializing in frigates and cruisers. US Timezone veterans and newbies alike are welcome to join us. Come chat in the "we fly rifters" in-game channel. |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3329
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 19:03:00 -
[153] - Quote
Petrus Blackshell wrote:Nova Fox wrote:You're saying it would be impossible for the navy to roll out a tech 2 launcher? Not impossible, but pointless. "T2" technology is made to be attuned to capsuleers. The navies do not use capsuleers in their army, and will not ever as capsuleers are loose cannons.
According to a story line mission in caldari space you basically pod a gallente loyalist capsuleer as your caldari intel officers basically said yup she woke up in a station over here.
Several of the named pirates are considered capsullers as well which is why no matter how many times you sink thier ships they always come back. Even the 'commanders' and elites could be capsulleers as well since thier ships are so much more powerful than the normal non pod captained ships.
Sansha Ships in incursions I honestly belive are controlled by permawater graved kidnapped people.
Also I am more questioning your source of technology 2 development, most lore I can find on it was morphite which just basically states that morphite allows alot of enhancments never thought of before.
Similar to how fullerides are technology 3's backbone.
|
Witchking Angmar
Perkele.
17
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 19:04:00 -
[154] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:Witchking Angmar wrote:Nova Fox wrote:Caldari Navy Torpedo Launcher I
Faction is not T1 and should not be marked as such. You're saying it would be impossible for the navy to roll out a tech 2 launcher? Its a high meta leveled tech 1 module regardless. Tech 2 skills have NO impact on said launcher and as far as the database is concerned its a tech 1 item. It may be never we would ever see tech 2 faction mods but who knows. I rather have the foundation prexisting and work done ahead of time instead of going back and redoing more work.
Storyline, deadspace, faction and officer mods are a whole different class of modules. Would you also have the T1 mark on officer and deadspace mods?
Edit: I personally think only mods that can be built by players should ever have the mark for T1 or T2. |
TorTorden
NorCorp Enterprise No Holes Barred
19
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 19:05:00 -
[155] - Quote
Im only posting this to stress the importance that we third party devs get an updated static data export withvthese changes ASAP, preferably 48 hours before changes go live or our stuff is going to be outdated at best, without this all killmail and loot log analyzers will be broken on patch day. |
Allianc
Novatech Armada En Garde
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 19:05:00 -
[156] - Quote
CCP, i get that youre trying to make this game easier for newbies to get into and i applaud the effort. The hardwiring changes are an excellent idea.
But for the love of god please leave my modules alone. There are nigh 400k of us who have lived with these mods for years, we love the unconventional names that they have, please dont go changing them. |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3329
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 19:09:00 -
[157] - Quote
Allianc wrote:CCP, i get that youre trying to make this game easier for newbies to get into and i applaud the effort. The hardwiring changes are an excellent idea.
But for the love of god please leave my modules alone. There are nigh 400k of us who have lived with these mods for years, we love the unconventional names that they have, please dont go changing them.
more like 250k the new 150k havent been here for a year or a second year to pluralize.
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
248
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 19:10:00 -
[158] - Quote
Petrus Blackshell wrote:Nova Fox wrote:You're saying it would be impossible for the navy to roll out a tech 2 launcher? Not impossible, but pointless. "T2" technology is made to be attuned to capsuleers. The navies do not use capsuleers in their army, and will not ever as capsuleers are loose cannons. The problem with using RP arguments is that they don't work because the 'official canon' is contradictory at best and just plain silly at worst. In this case the Empyrean Age novel is pretty specific on the empire navies using capsuleers since some of those are among the book's central protagonists.
p.s. Fucking_forums tried to eat this post. Thanks to Lazarus I got it back. |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3329
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 19:11:00 -
[159] - Quote
Witchking Angmar wrote:Nova Fox wrote:Witchking Angmar wrote:Nova Fox wrote:Caldari Navy Torpedo Launcher I
Faction is not T1 and should not be marked as such. You're saying it would be impossible for the navy to roll out a tech 2 launcher? Its a high meta leveled tech 1 module regardless. Tech 2 skills have NO impact on said launcher and as far as the database is concerned its a tech 1 item. It may be never we would ever see tech 2 faction mods but who knows. I rather have the foundation prexisting and work done ahead of time instead of going back and redoing more work. Storyline, deadspace, faction and officer mods are a whole different class of modules. Would you also have the T1 mark on officer and deadspace mods? Edit: I personally think only mods that can be built by players should ever have the mark for T1 or T2.
There was an accidental medium armor repairer (only 2 of existence and was forcibly removed if i recall right) that was a named Tech 2 Meta module. but this was before they had meta levels offically listed in the game, damn thing out repaired the best large armor reppers back then.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3329
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 19:14:00 -
[160] - Quote
Razin wrote:Petrus Blackshell wrote:Nova Fox wrote:You're saying it would be impossible for the navy to roll out a tech 2 launcher? Not impossible, but pointless. "T2" technology is made to be attuned to capsuleers. The navies do not use capsuleers in their army, and will not ever as capsuleers are loose cannons. The problem with using RP arguments is that they don't work because the 'official canon' is contradictory at best and just plain silly at worst. In this case the Empyrean Age novel is pretty specific on the empire navies using capsuleers since some of those are among the books central protagonists. p.s. Fucking_forums tried to eat this post. Thanks to Lazarus I got it back.
I am more questioning thier source of the lore, I havent seen any evidence tech 2 equipment is capsuleer only, even more recently ships. Ive read stories where a covert ops frigate had a subsantially sized crew and boarding party, and ships I could understand so much more of the room eaten up by the tech leaving little room for a normal non pod captained crew meaning the ship could only fully function with a crew compliment only possible by pod technologies.
I strongly belive this was the other major revision lore changes they rolled entirely though all the articles.
|
|
Ajita al Tchar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
80
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 19:14:00 -
[161] - Quote
Another reason it's pretty nice to have some unique names for classes of items, like 'Malkuth' or 'Voltaic' or whatever is that it makes it easier to be less ambiguous when talking about fits and modules to others. E.g. one could say "if you're low on CPU use Malkuths' and it's immediately clear that this is about changing out missile launchers. IF items had these creative, interesting and sci-fi-y components in their names ALONG with meta level identifiers, we would have something that's both easy to use in conversation, adds flavor and depth to the game, and is user-friendly.
FFS there are some really great ideas out there offered by players already, in this thread even for convenience. People care about the game they play! They want to see it grow and blossom rather than be painted with a generic easy on the eye color. Also, players aren't dumb, they can come up with excellent ideas that are very worth seriously considering. You're not making a playset for children where you think you know better. Your playerbase has a fairly significant portion of intelligent adults who are capable of creative and critical thinking. To not make use of this resource that, I'll bet, knows the game better and knows what works better than CCP Gnauton (and many other devs, tbh) is just not very smart. These are literally free ideas, hell, people even PAY to submit them by paying subscription fees. Not making use of it is dumb. |
Witchking Angmar
Perkele.
17
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 19:14:00 -
[162] - Quote
Razin wrote:Petrus Blackshell wrote:Nova Fox wrote:You're saying it would be impossible for the navy to roll out a tech 2 launcher? Not impossible, but pointless. "T2" technology is made to be attuned to capsuleers. The navies do not use capsuleers in their army, and will not ever as capsuleers are loose cannons. The problem with using RP arguments is that they don't work because the 'official canon' is contradictory at best and just plain silly at worst. In this case the Empyrean Age novel is pretty specific on the empire navies using capsuleers since some of those are among the book's central protagonists. p.s. Fucking_forums tried to eat this post. Thanks to Lazarus I got it back.
It's hardly an RP argument. Even the variants tab of any module is divided into the categories Tech I, Tech II, Storyline, Faction, Deadspace, and Officer. |
Sovai Elaaren
Korriban Confederation
9
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 19:14:00 -
[163] - Quote
I'm no longer a new player, but I remember what being a new player was like. Yes, it was obscure what items were better than others, so in part I am in favor of a naming convention that streamlines this.
However, I also remember the first time I found a Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron and thought. "WTF is that? What a cool name!". And then I saw that the acronym for this was PWNAGE and I had a "I <3 CCP" moment.
Names like this are like graphics... no they don't ultimately change the complexity of the game, but they change the feel, the atmosphere, the impressions you get while playing it. The PWNAGE target painter seems like a very special sort of item. More Better Target Painter does not.
I think there's an opportunity for a win-win here, where CCP could easily introduce a convention that more clearly conveys meta-level and keeps the flare. I very much hope that CCP will read all this feedback and realize that new players don't just want simple. I was a new player once too, and just because I'm not any longer doesn't mean I don't remember some of the things that made me fall in love with eve.
Sovai |
Witchking Angmar
Perkele.
17
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 19:18:00 -
[164] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:Razin wrote:Petrus Blackshell wrote:Nova Fox wrote:You're saying it would be impossible for the navy to roll out a tech 2 launcher? Not impossible, but pointless. "T2" technology is made to be attuned to capsuleers. The navies do not use capsuleers in their army, and will not ever as capsuleers are loose cannons. The problem with using RP arguments is that they don't work because the 'official canon' is contradictory at best and just plain silly at worst. In this case the Empyrean Age novel is pretty specific on the empire navies using capsuleers since some of those are among the books central protagonists. p.s. Fucking_forums tried to eat this post. Thanks to Lazarus I got it back. I am more questioning thier source of the lore, I havent seen any evidence tech 2 equipment is capsuleer only, even more recently ships. Ive read stories where a covert ops frigate had a subsantially sized crew and boarding party, and ships I could understand so much more of the room eaten up by the tech leaving little room for a normal non pod captained crew meaning the ship could only fully function with a crew compliment only possible by pod technologies. I strongly belive this was the other major revision lore changes they rolled entirely though all the articles.
Just to clarify something, i don't give a flying **** about RP side of things or the lore of the game. I simply think the T1 mark is not needed on faction, deadspace, storyline or officer mods.
|
Baljos Arnjak
Dark Praetorian Order
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 19:19:00 -
[165] - Quote
A couple of things I like and a couple I don't.
1. I like the hardwiring naming scheme for the most part, but it still leaves something to be desired. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it might have to do with the way the percent is displayed with other numbers. I'm not sure a newb would easily figure that out.
2. The launcher names actually make sense apart from the Light Missile Array. Maybe something like "Expanded Light Missile Launcher" or "Retro-fit Light Missile Launcher" or something similar.
3. I think in general, the new naming schemes are a bit robotic, for lack of a better word. It sounds to me like you're going to throw all the module data into a script and have it spit back the new names that comply to a rigid naming set. One of the interesting things in eve is that every NPC race and corporation has a "Market Activities" tab in the info window that shows what they produce. It makes sense to me that they would all use different and unique naming schemes for the items they produce. And by procedurally creating names totally strips them of that bit of flavor.
4. Suggestion - Add a tool tip (mouse-over) to the blue info icon that shows a condensed version of the item's stats. So, say, for missiles it would display the damage type, damage amount, and base flight time and speed. Launchers would display meta level and rate of fire. Turrets, metal level, damage mod, tracking, optimal and falloff. That way you wouldn't have to bring up the info window every time you wanted to check the important stats.
5. Meta 1 & 2 and meta 3 & 4 should be swapped. So meta 1 would be limited, 2 would be improved, 3 would be prototype, 4 would be experimental. Makes more sense to me anyway. Also, it might be a good idea to find a different word for either prototype or experimental as they seem to be pretty close in meaning, as some have stated before in this thread.
Fake Edit: Reading in the last 10 posts, I see Nova Fox came up with a good scheme for the meta levels that I like more than my suggestion =) |
Witchking Angmar
Perkele.
17
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 19:19:00 -
[166] - Quote
Sovai Elaaren wrote:I'm no longer a new player, but I remember what being a new player was like. Yes, it was obscure what items were better than others, so in part I am in favor of a naming convention that streamlines this.
However, I also remember the first time I found a Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron and thought. "WTF is that? What a cool name!". And then I saw that the acronym for this was PWNAGE and I had a "I <3 CCP" moment.
Names like this are like graphics... no they don't ultimately change the complexity of the game, but they change the feel, the atmosphere, the impressions you get while playing it. The PWNAGE target painter seems like a very special sort of item. More Better Target Painter does not.
I think there's an opportunity for a win-win here, where CCP could easily introduce a convention that more clearly conveys meta-level and keeps the flare. I very much hope that CCP will read all this feedback and realize that new players don't just want simple. I was a new player once too, and just because I'm not any longer doesn't mean I don't remember some of the things that made me fall in love with eve.
Sovai
Quoted for so much truth.
|
Woodiex3
Apex Clan
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 19:22:00 -
[167] - Quote
I'm all for the renaming, i no it suxs for ppl that have to redo DB/spreads but it needs doing.
|
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries Alliance not Found
19
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 19:23:00 -
[168] - Quote
Please stop this.
I'm not a fan of the changes already made and I'm certainly not in favour of having all my meta armour hardeners given names a six year old would think were lame.
When are the Projectile ammunitions being changed to "Short range Thermal (with a bit of Kinetic) Projectile Ammunition Large"* and Frequency Crystals changing to "A little bit longer than medium range seventy percent EM Frequency Crystal for Lasers Medium"*?
And incidentally, while I can remember that Mjolnir are EM I often find myself having to check the colour band on other missile types because, as an infrequent missile user, Nova and Trauma are entirely unfamiliar to me so you're hardly eliminating Show Info from the system.
* Phased Plasma L ** Infrared M |
Intermittent Fault
Punning Clan
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 19:24:00 -
[169] - Quote
Should have been cleaned up years ago.
How was it ever sensible to have the same name (Prototype) for Meta 4 railguns as Meta 3 projectiles, and Meta 4 projectiles (Scout) as Meta 2 rails. Similarly with lasers and blasters.
Still means the relevent skills for firing light missiles are called standard missiles. |
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force Fatal Ascension
124
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 19:32:00 -
[170] - Quote
Sometimes things just don't need changing. Whilst the Hardwired implant names are horribly nondescript, changing missile names was tinkering for tinkering's sake and caused unnecessary confusion. This is a good example of where asking us, the players, what we find confusing, and then changing that, will lead to avoidance of past troubles. I'd also ask you to keep things simple. Hardwired Implant names should convey what they do so something like "Hardwired CPU +3 Implant" would be helpful.
|
|
Meita Way
My Hat is Made of LOVE
50
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 19:40:00 -
[171] - Quote
I don't particularly like this - you're killing something that made items feel 'unique' for orthogonality. Orthogonality isn't fun. Orthogonality doesn't have a back-story. Orthogonality makes the names meaningless.
Come up with a better market search function, not worse names. |
Sodone Gristein
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 19:41:00 -
[172] - Quote
A lot of RPGs have cool item names. Removing features is a pretty silly approach to game design, especially when dealing with such an old game. Why not add meta level symbols to icons (a la T2/faction) and display meta level in the market interface as others have suggested ? |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 19:47:00 -
[173] - Quote
On one hand, I am going to miss the easy market searches for single items - "3200" being sufficient to uniquely pull meta 3 heavy launchers, say. On the other, I remember just how much easier this would have made my early days, and I sort of have to approve of it.
Also, anyone complaining about "dumbing down" the game is stupid. When they remove tracking or sovereignty, then you can complain about the game being simplified. But having a mountain of unique names for obscure modules helps nobody. It's not interesting, it's merely difficulty for the sake of difficulty. I may enjoy it, because I've been playing this game for five years and have a good memory for obscure trivia, but I know perfectly well that I am not a normal player, and that the normal ones will find this convenient. Hell, in six months I probably will too. |
RedClaws
Dragon's Rage
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 19:47:00 -
[174] - Quote
Dear CCP,
While I completely agree with the Hardwiring renaming and the Scripts, and I can understand the Siege Launchers.
Please for gods sake do not rename every named item in the game. It adds so much flavor to the world!
If all items are going to be named 'limited' and such it looks cheap as well, like there hasn't gone much thought into it.
EVE, unlike any other game, is hardcore. And while the industry is dumbing down every game, EVE as a hardcore game shouldn't really go along with it.
I mean common, 300k people so far have been able to get their heads around it, I don't think anybody is too stupid to figure that out (and if they are: do you really want them in eve?)
|
Dwindlehop
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 19:50:00 -
[175] - Quote
Is there a way to keep both the lore names and the usable names in the db? Tags, perhaps, or a new field?
I admit, it will be a usability win, even for a veteran player, to be able to tell meta level at a glance. The same for hardwirings. However, there are a couple of key named modules (Pseudoelectron Containment Field comes to mind) that I know the name of the module but not the meta level. If you completely delete the current name from the game, that's a step back in usability for veteran players.
Finally, if I can't use P.W.N.A.G.E. why am I even fitting paint? ;) |
Tampaxita
Poo Bashers
13
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 19:50:00 -
[176] - Quote
I think that some of the new names have not been understood properly. For example, the new meta names. Most of you, if not all, have a problem with limited as you, wrongly, think that it's limited as in "mentally challenged"... well, no. It's limited as in limited edition. Think of sport cars, there is the basic car that comes out, then the producers makes 500 cars with white stripes and 50 more hp which represent a LIMITED edition of that car. In my opinion, this makes perfect sense and is very much applicable to EVE.
So yeah, I think that Meta 1 = Upgraded and Meta 2 = Limited is a very good choice.
However, I do agree that experimental and prototype is kind of the same thing, perhaps replace experimental with superior. And to the guys whining about prototype, what the hell, it's nothing new ... it is already in the game ffs and it's awesome.
So, to conclude, I propose the following scheme:
Meta 1 - Upgraded Meta 2 - Limited Meta 3 - Superior Meta 4 - Prototype
As for the whole missile launcher fiasco, I also think that Rapid Light Missile Launcher is better the Light Missile Array.
Other than this, I approve with the changes. |
Doggy Dogwoofwoof
Doggy Missions
12
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 19:53:00 -
[177] - Quote
CCP, the hardwirings really need this, just don't change the TPs. Now as for missiles; NO, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. Now, Please rename all trauma missiles to Scourge, for i miss my scourge. |
Nathanael Lemmont
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
7
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 19:53:00 -
[178] - Quote
Doing this is better than doing nothing at all.
Finding a way to keep color while still clarifying what's what would be better still. The oft-repeated suggestion of better-communicated meta levels makes sense to me. |
Seismic Stan
51
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:02:00 -
[179] - Quote
JamesCLK wrote:Hnnng. I have mixed opinions on these changes. Can't decide if I like it or not (besides the implant name changes, those are good!). Seismic Stan wrote:I don't see the problem with using "trauma" for kinetic damage. Kinetic implies physical force, the result of which would be trauma to the affected object. "Trauma" may commonly be used in medical terms, but it isn't exclusive. Because fireing nausea missiles is less impressive than hellfire/inferno/PURGEWITHFLAMES missiles. /realises he just quoted mr.freebooted. It's probably more about how trauma is a medical condition, not a force in itself. Gravitron missiles might be more apropriate? (caldari using gravimetric systems and whatnot).
Yeah, I'm with you there. It's a little disappointing - now we have to unlearn what we have learned - but I appreciate how impenetrable and confusing it is for the newcomer. However, the flavour and character doesn't need to be lost, as I mentioned in an earlier comment, reference to original names could be preserved in the item descriptions.
One point of order: trauma isn't a medical condition, it's a descriptive term for damage caused by blunt force, as opposed to piercing and slicing (incision) and tearing (laceration & avulsion) and grazing (abrasion). Admittedly, these are all very biologically-themed, but given that a capsuleer is his ship anyway, I think "trauma" works. Blogger on Freebooted. Co-Creator of Tech4 podcast and website. Author of Incarna: The Text Adventure. |
Mystri
25
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:03:00 -
[180] - Quote
I would like to table the following proposal...
Meta 1 - Value Meta 2 - Extra Meta 3 - Royale Deluxe Meta 4 - Super Size Royale
|
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
567
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:09:00 -
[181] - Quote
Ugh.
So we have all scripts now with the word "script" appended for ease of search (good thing), but we've had "launcher" removed from one of the missile launchers (fail). You couldn't come up with "light assault launcher"?
I'm torn - some of what you're doing sounds good and useful, but the sledgehammer approach is killing so much of the cool descriptive feel that modules in Eve have.
While most games are striving towards things like the "Maul of Doom" and "Ferdinand's Fantastic Flametongue", your approach is to use "Hammer +1" and "Fire Sword +2".
You may not have the goal of removing Eve's flavor, but it's a byproduct of what you're accomplishing, and coming from a senior writer, this surprises me. This is my signature.-á There are many others like it, but this one is mine. |
Uppsy Daisy
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
78
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:09:00 -
[182] - Quote
Quote: It's not 'dumbing down the game'. It's just removing pointless obscurity
I'll second that. This does not remove a single mechanic. It just removes totally pointless obscurity. |
Maldranan
Nex Exercitus Raiden.
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:15:00 -
[183] - Quote
Tampaxita wrote:I think that some of the new names have not been understood properly. For example, the new meta names. Most of you, if not all, have a problem with limited as you, wrongly, think that it's limited as in "mentally challenged"... well, no. It's limited as in limited edition. Think of sport cars, there is the basic car that comes out, then the producers makes 500 cars with white stripes and 50 more hp which represent a LIMITED edition of that car. In my opinion, this makes perfect sense and is very much applicable to EVE.
So yeah, I think that Meta 1 = Upgraded and Meta 2 = Limited is a very good choice.
However, I do agree that experimental and prototype is kind of the same thing, perhaps replace experimental with superior. And to the guys whining about prototype, what the hell, it's nothing new ... it is already in the game ffs and it's awesome.
So, to conclude, I propose the following scheme:
Meta 1 - Upgraded Meta 2 - Limited Meta 3 - Superior Meta 4 - Prototype
As for the whole missile launcher fiasco, I also think that Rapid Light Missile Launcher is better the Light Missile Array.
Other than this, I approve with the changes.
The fact that you have to explains this shows this has already failed in simplifying the naming convention.
Yes, Limited could be "Limited Edition", so I see where you're coming from. You know, except for the fact that this OMG so sweet Limited Edition hardener (or whatever) is dirt cheap, common as hell and is actually worse than most of the other hardener out there. So while I understand your explanation, Limited Edition would make more sense for a rare and expensive storyline item than for a cheap meta level item. |
Damion Rayne
Dark-Rising
21
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:15:00 -
[184] - Quote
Steijn wrote:will you please stop dumbing the game down with these stupid generic name changes.
Will you please stop acting like a whiny school child? Thanks. :)
Stream lining the naming conventions in Eve, doesn't "Dumb" anything down people... Name changes don't suddenly lower the difficulty of Eve and to say they do is like saying that drinking milk makes you smarter. -DR Teamwork.. Maturity.. Tactics.. www.tacticalgamer.com |
Xavier Quo
InterSun Freelance Moon Warriors
32
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:15:00 -
[185] - Quote
I don't understand why you don't just change the icons to include S M L as per the guns but also include 1-8 for meta level, so S2, L7 etc
that way the info is even easier to understand than what you're proposing, and you can still retain the names, which DO help the game immersion.
The implant additions are nice but the limited, experimental stuff is not very good and still confusing. Might as well go with Mk I, Mk II etc. |
Captain Stroke
Slaganfall Flytt AB
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:18:00 -
[186] - Quote
When will you change the shipnames?
Can't wait to hop in my Caldari Cruiser 3 |
Random Womble
Emo Rangers Electric Monkey Overlords
8
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:19:00 -
[187] - Quote
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:Djakku wrote:this just makes the game more boring and less- sci fi...
Firstly the above quote is so true it really makes everything very dull.
It also makes it more long winded to distinguish between different items. While im sure it is somewhat intentional that searching for 10mn now brings up all afterburners/MWDs it at the same time reduces the functionality of the market search function by forcing people to type in longer strings to pull up a specific item. Normally if im using the market search function im looking for a specific item not to compare all the options.
Right now if i want to find a missile launcher i can just type in "th' a" if i want a 'Malkuth' assault launcher but if a lot of meta items get named the same way this is likely to lead in the future to long lists being produced or typing some more letters. You may say what are a few more letters but the reality is they represent additional unnecessary stages to a process which is bad design.
Im all for getting rid of the ' around the named launcher names but no wholesale changes to the names.
If you really insist on having prototype or similar in every name of a given meta level then fine tag it on to the names that already exist but dont rework the names entirely. Im ok if you switch the AB back to prototype y-s8 blah blah afterburner and prototype cold-gas blah blah AB. Thats fine because it keeps the search functionality and keeps the names unique giving them a less boring feel while adding an extra layer of information (ok it makes the name longer but that does not hit functionality) and you can even stick 10mn and 1MN in there (Prototype Cold-Gas Arcjet 1MN Thrusters sounds quite good imho even if its a bit on the long side). It also has a bit of a classic RPG element to it since most RPGs have weapons with wide ranging names so i might have an "uber sword of death-bringing" or a "Trident of inferior forum posts" but with some part of the name giving a partial clue as to the quality and type but other parts making the item feel unique.
On the topic of missiles the changes to the missile names were really not great. For a start why use names from obscure rarely used missile types if you wanted to use names previously used for damage types probably heavy missiles would have been the best since most people already recognise what damage types those missiles did but i doubt many knew most of the others beforehand (is nova and trauma from citadel cruise or a new name?) plus thunderbolt is easier to say than Mjolnir!
Secondly again if you insist on standardising the names then at the very least guided and unguided missiles should get different naming conventions to highlight that those missiles react differently (as should F.O.Fs but by the looks of it those have not been changed yet anyway).
The launcher name changes that have been documented may confuse people however i can understand them but i would say that the assault missile bay if it is going to be changed should give some indication its a cruiser size bay for STD missiles. |
Witchking Angmar
Perkele.
19
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:21:00 -
[188] - Quote
Sodone Gristein wrote:A lot of RPGs have cool item names. Removing features is a pretty silly approach to game design, especially when dealing with such an old game. Why not add meta level symbols to icons (a la T2/faction) and display meta level in the market interface as others have suggested ?
Yes please.
|
krickettt
Golden Orb Technology inc EVE Animal Control
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:22:00 -
[189] - Quote
Light Assault Launcher instead of Light Missile Array... please... That is some fail logic right there when you drop launcher from the name, yet you add script to all the script names for ease of search.
Should be: Heavy Assault Missile Launcher Light Assault Missile Launcher Light Missile Launcher
I see that you're trying to keep it down to three parts to a name. Screw that. |
Celebris Nexterra
Lowsec Static
41
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:22:00 -
[190] - Quote
Everything else is fine and makes sense, but renaming the missile launchers DOES NOT.
I have never been confused which launcher was which, not even when I first started the game. "Siege launcher" sounds way more badass than "Torpedo launcher."
If you want to remove the confusion, I think renaming all the assault missiles to HEAVY assault missiles would suffice. The launchers aren't the confusing part, it's the lack of consistency with the missile names. It's pretty easy to figure out that assault missile launchers use light missiles and heavy assault missile launchers use HEAVY assault missiles.
Or better yet, since essentially no one who knows anything about PvP uses assault launchers, make them use rockets and give them a velocity or flight time bonus or something, with greatly increased capacity. A rocket Caracal sounds pretty sweet to me.
But leaving one launcher named "array" makes literally NO SENSE. |
|
Celebris Nexterra
Lowsec Static
41
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:24:00 -
[191] - Quote
Witchking Angmar wrote:Sodone Gristein wrote:A lot of RPGs have cool item names. Removing features is a pretty silly approach to game design, especially when dealing with such an old game. Why not add meta level symbols to icons (a la T2/faction) and display meta level in the market interface as others have suggested ? Yes please.
QFT |
Szilardis
Phoibe Enterprises
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:25:00 -
[192] - Quote
Celebris Nexterra wrote:Witchking Angmar wrote:Sodone Gristein wrote:A lot of RPGs have cool item names. Removing features is a pretty silly approach to game design, especially when dealing with such an old game. Why not add meta level symbols to icons (a la T2/faction) and display meta level in the market interface as others have suggested ? Yes please. QFT This is an acceptable idea. Same names, now with tags. |
Penelope Raven
Raven's Toy Production
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:25:00 -
[193] - Quote
I like the Light Missile Array. Assault does need to be owned by the cruiser short range missile system and I would like the names kept as short as possible. If Array isn't perfect, how about Battery? I do not want a Launcher Array or Launcher Battery. Does everyone remember that the current Assault Missile Launcher uses Light Missiles but with greater capacity?
I also have issues with the names used for the different meta levels. Limited comes across as quantity rather than quality to me. Experimental and Prototype are very similar but I am used to Prototype railguns.
Daedalus II wrote:I'd like to have the meta levels something like this:
Meta Level 1: Advanced Meta Level 2: Enhanced Meta Level 3: Experimental Meta Level 4: Upgraded
Why in this particular order you might ask? Well because it's in alphabetical order, and as such it will sort very nicely in all programs, but especially in the market.
I do like this suggestion!
Others have also come up with better choices of names so I hope this dev blog doesn't indicate this is all set in stone. Here is another set...
Meta Level 1: Converted/Effectual/Efficient Meta Level 2: Enhanced/Improved Meta Level 3: Proficient/Potent/Prominent Meta Level 4: Sophisticated/superior
The current names of the target painters are classic. Please don't touch these!
I hope you are also going to update the market group names and skill names? Please replace the Standard Missiles skills! |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
976
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:25:00 -
[194] - Quote
Grey Stormshadow wrote:There is better ways to aid those who think that comparing items is currently too difficult and items are too difficult to search. Renaming is just easy way to get around doing anything too complex, which would actually require some coding.
I would:
- add shortcut button to neocom for compare tool - add some default selectable item groups to compare tool like different kind of ammo, charges and missiles for easy viewing. - add right click function "show all variations (in compare tool)" to items with multiple meta levels and variations. - add right click function "show other items of the group (in compare tool)" to (all?) items. Would show same items than in bottom level market group. For example other minmatar frigates or small projectile ammos. - add own search function and hideable item browser to compare tool. Should support also drag and drop like atm. - add filters to market to show only items related to kinetic, thermal, em or explosive (similiar than the button which u can press to "show only available") *special thanks to "Alpheias" for the original idea.
Dumping stuff down is really bad solution. Giving easier access to study and learn the complex will be much better solution in long term. Variety in item names has history and it gives so much more lifetime to the game.
Also you shouldn't forget how much people have invested time for 3rd party spreadsheets, programs and websites, which all use the standard eve item database. If you change the name from your code, hundreds are forced to do the same. Some may get this done by updating some database from standard dump, but many will do this manually. I'm sure they feel great passion towards individuals who did the name change pretty much just because it seemed like good idea, but really wasn't and if it was, it absolutely wasn't necessary and important one. There is million more important things to do than **** people off with the least obvious ones.
...And leave the names alone campaign is active - sign up
Get |
Jita Alt666
938
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:26:00 -
[195] - Quote
Please talk to Nova Fox about naming progressions. |
None ofthe Above
96
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:27:00 -
[196] - Quote
This could have been a huge win, but as people have been saying here and forever the new module names make little to no sense. You are swapping one type of obscurity for another, and losing flavor in the process.
"Limited" would be a good replacement for Civilian, not a higher meta. Prototypes and Experimentals are usually less than production, although I get that they could be prototypes of future better versions.
Leaving at least some of the old "flavor" names ('Malkuth', 'Bloodclaw',etc) in quotes would have been nice.
You could have also made them alphasort correctly, thereby adding functionality. I suppose if you folks add sort by meta to the variations tab, that could be forgivable.
Did you ever consider putting the name changes out as a proposal to be critiqued? Instead of just "these are the new names". (not just this round either, but as a whole the new names could have used some public comment).
Did the CSM get a chance to give feedback on these?
As it stands this renaming shows that CCP still needs to do more work to reconnect with its users and improve communication.
Understand and agree with the reasons for doing this but can't say execution was well done.
Even None ofthe Above supports Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM7! |
Ugleb
Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan
173
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:28:00 -
[197] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:ze blog wrote:Assault Missile Launchers have become Light Missile Arrays
Standard Missile Launchers have become Light Missile Launchers This seems like a bad idea to me. Every other launcher has the word launcher in it, so why is the assault launcher a special case? Why not just call it a rapid/fast light missile launcher, since that is exactly what it is and would fit better with the new launcher naming convention.
Very much agree with this, 'array' doesn't communicate what the module does very well. 'Rapid Missile Launcher' maybe?
Quote:Catch CCP Gnauton at the Storyline Roundtable at Fanfest 2012! More information on Fanfest topics, tickets and travel can be found here.
The first time I don't go to fanfest in FOUR YEARS and now you hold a storyline roundtable? You people are killing me! http://uglebsjournal.wordpress.com/ |
Pedro Snachez
The Rolling Clones
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:28:00 -
[198] - Quote
I like the changes overall, although the idea about changing array to a more fitting term containing launcher is a good one. I don't know what all the complaining about the terms being "less sci-fi" is about. Considering the ubiquity of the modules in Eve, having these naming schemes is realistic, whether you're talking about the far future or today.
What would be a cool addition would be if players could eventually name their own created modules (I think I remember the Devs talking about corp storefronts at one point in the far past). That would definitely add some flavor. |
Penelope Raven
Raven's Toy Production
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:29:00 -
[199] - Quote
Captain Stroke wrote:When will you change the shipnames?
Can't wait to hop in my Caldari Cruiser 3
That's no big deal. I want to see you jump in your Caldari Cruiser 2! |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
569
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:30:00 -
[200] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:While I'm sure we all have quibbles about particular name choices, the overall goal of consistency is a laudable one, and Gnauton deserves some +1's for taking on this non-sexy but useful project.
+1
How about actually hitting the mark of consistency if you want my +1.
Merely taking on the task and leaving the waters cloudy with a different color of mud is not worthy of applause.
If ever there was a task that could've had a grand conversation and benefitted greatly from the community's involvement, while at the same time not risked a single overpowering or unbalancing change, it would be this project. Interested players could've weighed in and developed some ownership of the game. Actual consistent goals could've been worked out together. Hundreds of instant beta testers could've discovered all sorts of naming anomolies quickly.
Instead, typical of CCP, the change goes in with no communication, no feedback and shoddy workmanship. This is my signature.-á There are many others like it, but this one is mine. |
|
Meita Way
My Hat is Made of LOVE
52
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:31:00 -
[201] - Quote
What I was getting at is that if you want the names to literally describe the thing, you may as well name them after the meta level. 'Meta 3 Afterburner', 'Meta 4 Shield Recharger' etc. It instantly kills a lot of what kept me in the game, which was the 'ooh, I wonder what that does?' factor. |
Sephanor
Universalis Imperium Tactical Narcotics Team
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:42:00 -
[202] - Quote
I wholeheartedly approve of these changes, one of the things that confuses every newb i teach to play this game is meta items and their naming conventions, especially so considering that these items are very important to the newer players amongst us.
Keep up the good work! |
Velicitia
Open Designs
699
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:44:00 -
[203] - Quote
Chribba wrote:I approve renaming the Civilian Mining Laser to Chribba's Modified Civil Mining Laser.
/c
+1 to this.
Hardwirings I get... that caused grief at times (though seriously, it's reminiscent of looking through a product manual -- "Hi bob, do you have three more KMB-75s"?)
Some of the things you're changing will make things suck though... I mean seriously, what's wrong with Magnetic/Reactive/Reflective/Thermic for hardeners (regardless of the fact they don't match with shields ... which is PERFECTLY FINE)? What's next ... are you gonna start colour-coding the names*?
* note --> if this is ever suggested by a dev, the offending dev should be told to GB2WOW and to stop ******* with our beloved EVE. |
Mereden
Space Lizards
6
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:50:00 -
[204] - Quote
This makes eve vastly less appealing to my mind, the funky names are part of the game flavour. Make it easier to figure out which module is best - awesome. Do it without screwing up the style of the game though.
The module name changes are a dreadful idea, think of a smarter way to accomplish the same thing. If you can't think of a smarter way to do it, find someone smarter and get them to do it. |
Velicitia
Open Designs
701
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:54:00 -
[205] - Quote
Mereden wrote:The module name changes are a dreadful idea, think of a smarter way to accomplish the same thing. If you can't think of a smarter way to do it, then don't do it.
FYP. |
Snus Mumriken
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:57:00 -
[206] - Quote
First of all: Kudos to CCP Gnauton for taking care of this job and - which is even more important - writing a dev blog about it.
I second the ideas about keeping the word Launcher for all missile launchers and also the type of missile used in the launcher, thus renaming the Light Missiles Array into something that contains Launcher like Rapid Light Missile Launcher is important for consistency.
Speaking about consistency I noticed the change of Thermal to Thermic. For example Ditrigonal Thermal Barrier Crystallization I will be named Ditrigonal Thermic Barrier Crystallization I. That's good, because now a search for Thermic will include all items that help buffing my thermal resistance. But in the List of module changes I couldn't find any rigs. While for thermal armor resistance all the rigs are called [Size] Anti-Thermic Pump the shield ones are called [Size] Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer. This needs to be changed to [Size] Anti-Thermic Screen Reinforcer.
I can understand that there are a lot of different opinions regarding the prefixes for meta levels 1 to 4, but I can imagine that changing these prefixes once all items have been streamlined is nothing more than a find and replace all in your favorite text editor.
While writing my post additional ideas came up. One I like most is to add more information into the icon of an item. Tech2, Faction, Deadspace and Officer items are marked. Why not add the meta level into another corner for all items and of course add this information to the market search result display. Even something like a meta level filter for the market search would help a lot. |
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
254
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:58:00 -
[207] - Quote
Gee CCP Gnauton, for a 'Senior Writer' you sure don't right much. |
Zedd Al'thor
The Hatchery Team Liquid
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 21:03:00 -
[208] - Quote
krickettt wrote:
Should be: Heavy Assault Missile Launcher Light Assault Missile Launcher Light Missile Launcher
This
|
Elyon Itari
The Restless Masquerade Hedonistic Imperative
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 21:06:00 -
[209] - Quote
Penelope Raven wrote:Others have also come up with better choices of names so I hope this dev blog doesn't indicate this is all set in stone. Here is another set...
Meta Level 1: Converted/Effectual/Efficient Meta Level 2: Enhanced/Improved Meta Level 3: Proficient/Potent/Prominent Meta Level 4: Sophisticated/superior
This suggestion seems less bland than the Advanced/Enhanced/Experimental/Upgraded suggestion (which was still preferable to the initial dev blog, in my opinion).
From your suggestion, my personal preference would probably be ... Efficient < Improved < Potent < ... apparently I do not particularly fancy any of the current Meta 4 suggestions. Maybe superlative or supreme?
The original suggestion to make the Meta indicator sort alphabetically is genius, by the way.
Alternatively, we could even aim for an A/B/C/D approach, if suitable power rank synonyms exist. Initial thoughts on that idea; not to be taken as serious suggestions:
Meta Level 1: Advanced / Alternate / Amplified / Agile Meta Level 2: Boosted / Biased / Beta? / Benign? - I am at a loss, here Meta Level 3: Capable / Complemented / Converted Meta Level 4: Definitive / Definite / Dominating / Developed / Distinguished
Personal favourites being Amplified < Boosted < Complemented < Developed.
Just some random thoughts. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
14
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 21:07:00 -
[210] - Quote
Just to keep missile launchers consistent with other weapon naming trends shouldn't the light missile array be changed to dual light missile launcher or quad light missile launcher? |
|
Patient 2428190
DEGRREE'Fo'FREE Internet Business School
87
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 21:20:00 -
[211] - Quote
I look forward to downloading all 38 patches you'll have to get all the modules renamed as much as I'll enjoy all the broken killboards over the year it will take you to make all those patches. |
Slash Harnet
Inner Shadow
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 21:20:00 -
[212] - Quote
Maybe I've overlooked it, but how does this affect armor plates? 'Nanofiber' plates communicates information that isn't given with the new naming scheme, but in general the current system is better than anything else. (and t2 plates are still a joke). |
Ajita al Tchar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
83
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 21:27:00 -
[213] - Quote
Zedd Al'thor wrote:krickettt wrote:
Should be: Heavy Assault Missile Launcher Light Assault Missile Launcher Light Missile Launcher
This
See, I personally have a feeling that this is a little syntactically ambiguous. You could parse the names differently.
[ [Heavy [Assault Missile]] Launcher ] [ [Light [Assault Missile]] Launcher ] [ [Light Missile] Launcher ]
Problem: there are no Light Assault Missiles and the thing that's either the AML or the Light Missile Array (bleh) actually just uses light missiles.
[ [Heavy Assault] [Missile Launcher] ] [ [Light Assault] [Missile Launcher] ] [ Light [Missile Launcher] ]
This seems to prod toward a semantic interpretation where each "Missile Launcher" is described in terms of its ability to assault and pwn, but actually doesn't say anything about the type of missiles used for said assaultage and pwnage which is probably not good, you'd have to showinfo for charge type.
[ Heavy [Assault Missile Launcher] ] [ Light [Assault Missile Launcher] ] [Light [Missile Launcher] ]
Seems to suggest that the HAML and the LAML are kind of the same thing, just two different grades (e.g. one could be a frig sized launcher, the other can be one level up, a cruiser-sized launcher). The LML then is just something different. This isn't exactly the case, though...
Basically, it seems like the fundamental issue here is the fact that the word "assault" is currently used to refer to two different categories of items: missiles and launchers. This is confusing because there are no "assault missiles" (only HAMs), and "assault launchers" don't fire anything that has the word "assault" in it which is different from every other launcher type (esp. with the changes to siege launcher names). Personally, I'm in favor of removing the word "assault" from the thing that's currently known as the AML, but definitely keeping the word "launcher" in it because, uhhhh, well.... every other launcher is called "(something) launcher". Something descriptive would be good too keeping in mind the overarching goal of making names less arcane. Consistency! Humans are excellent pattern recognition machines, just don't give them crap-ass patterns. |
Eshinto Sidahan
Phoenix Technologies Inc. Independent International Corporations
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 21:28:00 -
[214] - Quote
Palovana wrote:All this but you're not fixing the "Trauma"?
You're already changing the hardener names to match damage type so do this:
Trauma Light Missile => Kinetic 'Bloodclaw' Light Missile Mjolnir Rocket => EM 'Gremlin' Rocket etc.
/signed |
Yosagi Yojimbo
Psykotic Meat BLACK-MARK
11
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 21:30:00 -
[215] - Quote
For the love of all that is good.
Stop doing this!
Stop dumbing the game down!
They were more than fine as they were!
You are creating confusion for your current paying customers!
Your. Current. Customers.
These mythical future customers would adapt!
We did!
For the love of all that is good stop doing this!!!
|
Jalmari Huitsikko
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
45
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 21:31:00 -
[216] - Quote
dont touch the names
also change missiles and mwd's and ab's back
THOSE OLD NAMES HAVE EMOTIONAL VALUE WHICH CANNOT BE MEASURED
thank you for understanding u muppets :p
|
Velicitia
Open Designs
701
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 21:32:00 -
[217] - Quote
Yosagi Yojimbo wrote:For the love of all that is good.
Stop doing this!
Stop dumbing the game down!
They were more than fine as they were!
You are creating confusion for your current paying customers!
Your. Current. Customers.
These mythical future customers would adapt!
We did!
For the love of all that is good stop doing this!!!
+1 |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
39
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 21:35:00 -
[218] - Quote
+1 for concept -1 for execution
Implant renaming is excellent. Personally I feel the general manner in which those names were created should be expanded to all the modules.
Things I'm not fond of: Order of the meta distinguishers seems unituitive The distinguishers themselves seem uninspired Using the same 4 meta distinguishers across all module types (some type of breakup seems like it would help here to keep searching "prototype" from trying to pull a large chunk items across all types) Continuing the total lack of flavor text on everything but implants |
Josef Stylin
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 21:35:00 -
[219] - Quote
I disapprove of everything but the implants. |
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
375
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 21:36:00 -
[220] - Quote
All looks fine and great, except for the missiles. How are your proposed names any better than what we have?
A simple system I came up with in about 30 seconds:
Frigate launchers - rocket launchers. Cruiser launchers - missile launchers. Battleship launchers - torpedo launchers. Capital launchers - citadel torpedo launchers.
Close-range launchers - heavy launchers. Long-range launchers - light launchers.
So the new classification would be:
Rockets - heavy rockets. Light missiles - light rockets. HAMs - heavy missiles. HMLs - light missiles. Torpedoes - heavy torpedoes. Cruise missiles - light torpedoes. Citadel torps - heavy citadel torpedoes. Citadel cruises - light citadel torpedoes.
Rename the charges accordingly, including the damage type. Keep the flavor names for RPers or for people searching for a specific item.
Kinetic 'scourge' light missile. Explosive 'havoc' light missile. EM 'thunderbolt' light missile. Explosive 'widowmaker' light missile.
EM 'mjolnir' heavy torpedo. Kinetic 'juggernaut' heavy torpedo. EM 'paradise' light torpedo. Kinetic 'wrath' light torpedo.
etc.
The Fury and Precision prefixes for TII charges can stay. |
|
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
768
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 21:37:00 -
[221] - Quote
Yosagi Yojimbo wrote:For the love of all that is good.
Stop doing this!
Stop dumbing the game down!
They were more than fine as they were!
You are creating confusion for your current paying customers!
Your. Current. Customers.
These mythical future customers would adapt!
We did!
For the love of all that is good stop doing this!!!
We all adapted. CCP you need to realize you dont need to adapt to the rest of the worlds mmo model. I DONT CARE IF we are niche and we dont get many new players. The complexity eliminates 13 year olds from this game. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
39
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 21:39:00 -
[222] - Quote
Yosagi Yojimbo wrote: Stop dumbing the game down!
If the name change alters how you are using the mods, you weren't doing it right to begin with.
Yosagi Yojimbo wrote: These mythical future customers would adapt!
We did!
If this is true you should have no problem adapting further.
Not totally happy with the changes but these arguments are not good reasons not to do them. |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
978
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 21:45:00 -
[223] - Quote
Do not worry people - CCP will go ahead with this change no matter what. Casualties will be silenced and buried under the new shiny highway of new improved eve online where communication is in back burner (again).
Get |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3333
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 21:48:00 -
[224] - Quote
Im going to bring this up to the CSM, 12 pages and no reply at all to any concerns.
|
Sany Saccante
Siberian Khatru. Shadow Operations.
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 21:51:00 -
[225] - Quote
Renaming assault missile launcher to light missile array is stupid. imagine how drake kills BS with light missile arrays, witch i presume will fire light missiles. That will not work, not at all.
BTW meta 1 should be limited and meta 4 innovative or something like that, just not prototype and experimental, that's basically the same. |
Velicitia
Open Designs
703
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 21:53:00 -
[226] - Quote
Much as I dislike the goons ... seems we need one of them to kick CCP in the head right now... |
Frank Madox
Solarwind Interstellar Mining and Production Ltd
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 21:53:00 -
[227] - Quote
Ok, I'm all in favor for streamlining the names of the various mods. But for the love of everything that is good and just don't make them into something so bland.
There's something special about the existing names. I can still remember how much fun it was to parade around in something fitted with things like "N-type reactive membrane", or those fancy sounding Cold-gas Arcjet thrusters. Despite the fact that they were only meta 4 modules it still felt like something to gloat about.
As others have mentioned before, many MMOs and RPGs have employed fancy names and it adds to the atmosphere and feel of the game. It's pretty reasonable to say that, for example, something named "Dork's Sword of Unholy Nerd Rage" would sound better compared to something named "Large Sword +3 with flame runes and stuff" even if it is the same damn thing.
There are many naming conventions that have been suggested that still streamline the names whilst still keeping that interesting and unique feel that the various mods already have.
+ 1 for ideas like "Prototype Carbide 250mm railgun" or "Converted 250mm Compressed Coil Gun"
-1 for things like "limited 250mm railgun"
Internet spacehips is serious business.
|
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
720
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 21:57:00 -
[228] - Quote
Good that you're listening.
Now how about going back and fixing the missile names to retain the old flavor before you butchered it with the last update?
We want our Scourge, Bloodclaw, Cataclysm, Wrath, Bane, Thunderbolts and Widowmakers back.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3333
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 21:57:00 -
[229] - Quote
Is CCP devs responsible even reading these?
|
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
108
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:00:00 -
[230] - Quote
I think the renaming scheme goes a bit too far, mainly with the module names. And the only useful terms are "limited" which sounds like it should be Meta 1, and "prototype" which does sound ok.
OR, as an alternative, keep just the META 4 names the same, and change meta 1-3 to the simpler naming scheme. That way we get to keep the majority of the cool names, and can also seperately identify meta 4 from the other stuff.
Skill hardwiring changes seem fine, its not like you see the names that often anyway, and they're the most obtuse.
|
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
337
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:04:00 -
[231] - Quote
This renaming is crap.
Why?
Easy, it's called memory patterns.
We won't recall differences between very slight differences but we recall diverse and unique labels. It's also the mechanism used in "branding" (you want to say you have a Gucci purse, not a "mildly experimental purse").
Therefore calling something "upgraded" says very little, they may as well say "meta 1".
Saying Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters is a very unique (and cool) name, you'll have higher chances to recall it's an enhanced AB than just flagging it with some generic adjective.
When I get a shiny axe in another MMO, it's called [Slayer Of The Ages], not "experimental Axe" and these are MMOs for 13 old!
Why does EvE have to do WORSE than a 13 old MMO?
Why are you borking NAMES when you could fix the actual T2 invention 10000000 clicks windows and finally streamline the damn game for real? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Ajita al Tchar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
84
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:06:00 -
[232] - Quote
Josef Stylin wrote:I disapprove of everything but the implants.
I gave you a like just for your name.
Pondering the significance of liking someone's name in a thread about other names. |
Entity
X-Factor Industries Synthetic Existence
95
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:07:00 -
[233] - Quote
Can you imagine what happened if Blizzard did a similar change to WoW?
We'd be running around wearing stuff like:
"Legendary Staff ilvl 397" "Epic Cloth Helm ilvl 378" "Epic Plate Belt ilvl 397" "Rare Leather Boots ilvl 346"
It'd be so much easier!
The Lord of the Items (me) hereby vetos the module rename. (implants are still go though)
GòªGûæGûæGûæGûæGûæGûæGòæGûæGûæGûæGòöGòùGûæGòæGûæGòæGûæGòöGòùGûæGòªGòæGûæGòöGòùGòöGòªGòùGòöGòù GòæGûæGòöGòùGòöGòùGòöGòúGûæGòöGòùGòáGûæGûæGòáGûæGòáGòùGòáGò¥GûæGòæGòáGûæGòáGò¥GòæGòæGòæGòÜGòù Gò¬GòÉGòÜGò¥GòæGûæGòÜGò¥GûæGòÜGò¥GòæGûæGûæGòÜGò¥GòæGòæGòÜGò¥GûæGò¬GòÜGò¥GòÜGò¥GòæGûæGòæGòÜGò¥ Got Item? | [topic=6504]EVE API?[/topic] | [topic=6501]Cache?[/topic] |
Vorll Minaaran
Centre Of Attention Middle of Nowhere
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:09:00 -
[234] - Quote
Hi there!
I think its not a terrible idea to rename the missiles, modules or others, but they should find a better solution. There are a lot of good solutions here and in the last thread, i prefer Nova Fox suggestions. And when CCP really wants to rename the missiles, they should use the standard or heavy missile names, because the new players meet them first and torpedoes later (ie: Mjolnir). Cant even train for ships which are using torpedoes on trial account.
Implants changes are good, +1 for that.
Sadly i will hate CCP Gnauton and/or his team until they find a better naming scheme for the modules/missiles. -n for that. (n=count of changed modules) Mostly because they ask for feedback last time, but seems they didnt find worth our feedback to consider before the next stage. See this: link
Hope for better attitude for CCP Gnauton and his team, i understand your reasons, but you should understand the playerbase reasons too. We both love this game, and be very passionate about it.
regards. |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3333
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:10:00 -
[235] - Quote
Entity wrote:Can you imagine what happened if Blizzard did a similar change to WoW?
We'd be running around wearing stuff like:
"Legendary Staff ilvl 397" "Epic Cloth Helm ilvl 378" "Epic Plate Belt ilvl 397" "Rare Leather Boots ilvl 346"
It'd be so much easier!
The Lord of the Items (me) hereby vetos the module rename. (implants are still go though)
What did you think of my purposal a hybridized approach.
|
Zowie Powers
Hole in the wall
51
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:11:00 -
[236] - Quote
I'm sick of seeing the word Experimental everywhere already.
Make your stupid change, it's clear you want to make this game as stupid to play as you can think of, but please please please please PLEASE give us a local textsubstitution file, so that if we don't want to see your stupid names we DON'T HAVE TO and everybody that does, can.
How about that huh? |
Lithriel Del'Rashae
Aelyn Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:17:00 -
[237] - Quote
What baffles me is that there isn't a response in here from CCP (or in the other threads on the Eve-o forums about this change) saying "Huh... so we could probably make everybody happy by doing a hybrid of the old and new names, providing more clarity and retaining the sci-fi feel of our game. Let's do that!"
Such a painfully obvious path to take on this one. |
Niraia
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
92
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:18:00 -
[238] - Quote
Standard Forum Post - Chief of Security - http://www.eohpoker.com - Ocillian Armada - http://ocil.gallenteprime.com |
Ajita al Tchar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
84
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:19:00 -
[239] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:Good that you're listening.
Now how about going back and fixing the missile names to retain the old flavor before you butchered it with the last update?
We want our Scourge, Bloodclaw, Cataclysm, Wrath, Bane, Thunderbolts and Widowmakers back.
So true! And Paradise! "Your Paradise Cruise Missile hits LolBoat for 9001 damage" (j/k, I don't actually use those, but I always appreciated the name when it pops up in NPC damage notifications.
Many objects of war have srs bzness names and more... ahh.. whimsical names (for the lack of a better term; "whimsy" isn't something I'd use to describe war). What's wrong with incorporating stuff like "Bloodclaw" and "Bane" and whatnot into names alongside a damage type descriptor? It's not like people often type the name of the whole thing anyway, though I admit that loner strings might be problematic for displaying on kb's and EFTs and the like.
I haven't changed "Scourges" to "Traumas" on my nerd spreadsheets because it just doesn't feel right, Scourge is so much more menacing than lol brain trauma.
Are drone names next up to get hit by the sledgehammer? I mean, it's not like "Ogre" tells you right away what damage type it does even if you know what damage type "Hammerhead" is. Please don't hurt my little Hobgobs And if not, please justify the logic of removing unique names from missiles, but keeping drones intact. Also, what about hybrid ammo? Shouldn't that have range modifiers in the name somewhere? Uber Short Range Charge S, etc. |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3336
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:19:00 -
[240] - Quote
"The best path not always the easiest."
|
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Project Wildfire
182
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:20:00 -
[241] - Quote
Light Missile Arrays sounds really dumb... What's wrong with "assault missiles launcher" and "heavy missiles launcher"?
TBH some of the descriptions of modules and skills are in greater need of a change |
Random Womble
Emo Rangers Electric Monkey Overlords
8
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:21:00 -
[242] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:This renaming is crap.
Why?
Easy, it's called memory patterns.
Saying Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters is a very unique (and cool) name, you'll have higher chances to recall it's an enhanced AB than just flagging it with some generic adjective.
]
While I agree the Catalyzed was the MWD variant... |
Gorilla Moose
ProtoStar Trading United Abominations
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:22:00 -
[243] - Quote
think the names for the meta levels should be switched a lil..
from :
Meta Level 1: Upgraded
Meta Level 2: Limited
Meta Level 3: Experimental
Meta Level 4: Prototype
to:
Meta Level 1: Limited
Meta Level 2: Upgraded
Meta Level 3: Experimental
Meta Level 4: Prototype
that is all... for now :) |
Corvin Dallaz
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:22:00 -
[244] - Quote
I am very much against the over simplification of eve; without the "fluff", it really is just a spreadsheet with pretty lighting and random number generators. The atmosphere generated by the names, background stories and such like are what makes the gameworld interesting.
However, lets just get it straight that these devs are the same ones who ignored the unpopular missile name changes and refused to listen to any other opinions then, basically acknowledging this in this latest blog, so the chances of anything we say here making a real difference are next to nothing... *Deep breath* However, if they are going through with it, I second the suggestions along these lines:
Meta Level 1: Upgraded Meta Level 2: Improved Meta Level 3: Enhanced Meta Level 4: Advanced
It has an alphabetical order to it (backwards, but just sounds "right" in this order) and at least makes each step sound like a more logical improvement, then take the advice of adding in the original "fluff" name in there somewhere and it doesn't get TOO bad... Makes more sense to both those who are learning and those who know the old names. For example:
1MN Afterburner I Upgraded 1MN 'Monopropellant' Afterburner Improved 1MN 'Arcjet' Afterburner 1MN Afterburner II
The changes to the implants are a decent example of Doing It Right. You have a better idea of what it does, and part of that actually still sounds sci-fi-esque -That's how it should be! |
Rommel Rottweil
Thundercats Initiative Mercenaries
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:24:00 -
[245] - Quote
I cant say I like the new names tbh.
Let me suggest this: Why not just change 3 launcer names, keep it simple:
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher => Heavy Missile Battery
Assault Missile Launcher => Light Missile Battery
Siege Launchers => Torpeado Launcher (probably the best change of all mentioned in the blog tbfh)
Does this sound better lol:
Tier1 - Upgraded Tier2 - Improved Tier3 - Advanced Tier4 - Prototype
If nothing else I ask you to NOT RUSH into comprahensive changes like this without getting more feedback from players. Howabout taking a golden middleway and have common generic names for tier 1-4 for the weapon systems, shield, armor, engineering etc. etc. Picking the coolest names and moderating it a bit it could end up so much cooler than your current suggestion. This would at least retain some of the unique flavor that eve has.
If you really want to dumb it down why not just add a T"X" as a prefix to all equipment and leave names as they are: Tier0 - T1.0 Tier1 - T1.2 Tier2 - T1.4 Tier3 - T1.6 Tier4 - T1.8 Tier5 - T2.0
This would allow every player to instantly recognize everything ingame. But imho then oversimplifying the game will be negative to it in the long run. |
Xurr
Angelic Insurrection Corp
13
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:26:00 -
[246] - Quote
So...
Meta Level 1: Upgraded
Meta Level 2: Limited
Meta Level 3: Experimental
Meta Level 4: Prototype
I don't see how upgraded implies that it is lesser than limited. I also don't see any sort of clue upon first glance as to whether experimental or prototype would be better. Maybe:
Meta Level 1: Limited
Meta Level 2: Upgraded
Meta Level 3: Enhanced
Meta Level 4: Prototype
Or leave it alone. All i'm really saying is i don't see how upgraded indicates that it should be worse than limit. |
Shade Millith
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:27:00 -
[247] - Quote
Quote:Heavy Assault Missile Launchers have become Assault Missile Launchers
No no no.
This is breaking your naming scheme. Heavy Missiles Launchers and Heavy Assault Missile Launchers.
Leave them as Heavy Assault Missile Launchers. Don't add confusion by changing the name of a medium sized weapons to the name of a light weapon. |
Entity
X-Factor Industries Synthetic Existence
98
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:33:00 -
[248] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:What did you think of my purposal a hybridized approach.
Minor improvement, but considering I want them to not touch that stuff at all, still no go for me :P
For 9 years we've had these module names now. Suddenly the names are inadequate? Seriously?
GòªGûæGûæGûæGûæGûæGûæGòæGûæGûæGûæGòöGòùGûæGòæGûæGòæGûæGòöGòùGûæGòªGòæGûæGòöGòùGòöGòªGòùGòöGòù GòæGûæGòöGòùGòöGòùGòöGòúGûæGòöGòùGòáGûæGûæGòáGûæGòáGòùGòáGò¥GûæGòæGòáGûæGòáGò¥GòæGòæGòæGòÜGòù Gò¬GòÉGòÜGò¥GòæGûæGòÜGò¥GûæGòÜGò¥GòæGûæGûæGòÜGò¥GòæGòæGòÜGò¥GûæGò¬GòÜGò¥GòÜGò¥GòæGûæGòæGòÜGò¥ Got Item? | [topic=6504]EVE API?[/topic] | [topic=6501]Cache?[/topic] |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
1039
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:38:00 -
[249] - Quote
Thank you for your good, plentiful and constructive feedback so far! Be assured that we are paying attention, especially to the naming suggestions. CCP Phantom - German Community Coordinator |
|
Annika Petrovich
HONOURABLE SPACE WARRIORS
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:39:00 -
[250] - Quote
Are you going to rename fof missiles yet? I mean, I enjoy searching through the results of a f.o.f. market search looking for the kinetic ones with the grey warhead and all... |
|
Zephyyr
ADVANCED Combat and Engineering Violent Society
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:44:00 -
[251] - Quote
"whose names have been deemed too confusing by a fearless cross-departmental cadre of game designers, UI designers & content developers"
Glad to see the players, who play your game, and have taken the time to learn the names had a say in this. Or that the CSM had a hand in this at the very least. Oh wait.
SO, you made it "simpler" . In other words every single player that has been playing for god knows how long and has learned all the mods, will now have to relearn their names. Even if the naming process has been dumbed down we still have to relearn it. Why not focus on things that need legitimate attention and leave the ******* ITEM NAMES ALONE. If the engine of a car is running rough simply getting the car detailed will not help. Focus on balancing issues and mechanics before you start screwing with stuff that is, if nothing else, NOT BROKEN.
Regards Zeph
PS, I dont do forums, cant be bothered. But this just pissed me off too much to ignore. Stop shining the car, and fix the working parts. |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
978
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:47:00 -
[252] - Quote
Start coding and stop trying to come up with easy solutions like "lets rename database here and there" to avoid implementing actual features and deny word "neocom" in content of needs updating - move on people - nothing to see here!. Total awesomeness protected by CCP in action.
Get |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion Mildly Intoxicated
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:49:00 -
[253] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:Good that you're listening.
Now how about going back and fixing the missile names to retain the old flavor before you butchered it with the last update?
We want our Scourge, Bloodclaw, Cataclysm, Wrath, Bane, Thunderbolts and Widowmakers back.
Yes, keep these (actually, no) Scourge - poison dmg? Bloodclaw - blood? red? explosion or thermal dmg? Cataclysm - wth? Wrath - anger dmg? Bane - death dmg? Thunderbolt - lightning dmg? Widowmaker - instgib dmg?
Yes, lets keep these, because they are supereasy to understand and remember....... |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
980
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:49:00 -
[254] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:Thank you for your good, plentiful and constructive feedback so far! Be assured that we are paying attention, especially to the naming suggestions. Thanks for confirming that this thing will be force fed no matter how much resistance there is.
Send my best to Hilmar. Tell him to get ready for awesome stuff.
Get |
Trinkets friend
Obstergo NEM3SIS.
167
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:57:00 -
[255] - Quote
Noes, eventually RRT's will become 1600mm Prototype armour plates. :(
To be honest, the areas where these improvements will be most advantageous will be the armour hardeners and reflective plating; I can never remember whether the voltaic is better than the nanite. The skilful employer of men will employ the wise man, the brave man, the covetous man, and the stupid man. Sun Tzu @trinketsfriend on twatter
|
Dumgard
Sigma Dynamics
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:58:00 -
[256] - Quote
Zephyyr wrote:"whose names have been deemed too confusing by a fearless cross-departmental cadre of game designers, UI designers & content developers"
Glad to see the players, who play your game, and have taken the time to learn the names had a say in this. Or that the CSM had a hand in this at the very least. Oh wait.
SO, you made it "simpler" . In other words every single player that has been playing for god knows how long and has learned all the mods, will now have to relearn their names. Even if the naming process has been dumbed down we still have to relearn it. Why not focus on things that need legitimate attention and leave the ******* ITEM NAMES ALONE. If the engine of a car is running rough simply getting the car detailed will not help. Focus on balancing issues and mechanics before you start screwing with stuff that is, if nothing else, NOT BROKEN.
Regards Zeph
PS, I dont do forums, cant be bothered. But this just pissed me off too much to ignore. Stop shining the car, and fix the working parts. +1 ... This is rediculous.
CCP: How many man hours were wasted by the programmers on this renaming idea... introducing the idea, having meetings, etc? What's next?
Ballistic Control System I -> Missile Damage Increaser Ballistic Control System II -> Better Missile Damage Increaser |
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe Against ALL Authorities
226
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:59:00 -
[257] - Quote
Chalk up one more for : Light Missile Arrays and Light Missile Launchers are much too similar.
Best change that.
Otherwise I approve although I will miss the old names.
FIRE FRIENDSHIP TORPEDOES ! |
Trinkets friend
Obstergo NEM3SIS.
167
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:59:00 -
[258] - Quote
Grey Stormshadow wrote:Total awesomeness protected by CCP in action.
CCP in action - CCP doing stuff CCP inaction - CCP not doing stuff.
Herp de derp!
The skilful employer of men will employ the wise man, the brave man, the covetous man, and the stupid man. Sun Tzu @trinketsfriend on twatter
|
darius mclever
24
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 23:01:00 -
[259] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Just want to echo what some have said here and others have suggested before. Please add the ability to sort items by meta level. I think if you did that in conjunction with these name changes most of these over reactors in this thread will be appeased.
you can already.
- switch your container/hangar/cargo bay to detail or list mode
- right click on the table header
- pick "show meta level"
- sort by that colum
- done
|
Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
67
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 23:08:00 -
[260] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:Thank you for your good, plentiful and constructive feedback so far! Be assured that we are paying attention, especially to the naming suggestions.
Just to clarify, how exactly are you changing the names? For example, how will "Large 'Solace' Remote Bulwark Reconstruction" be named? Will it now be "Large Prototype Remote Armor Repair System," or will it be "Large Prototype 'Solace' Remote Bulwark Reconstruction"?
The first preserves nothing of the flavor, and reduces all the modules in the game to little more than "Magic Sword +1/2/3/4." I sincerely hope you (the developers) are not quite that lazy, and have more regard for this game's flavor and lore. It also would make it much more difficult to search for specific items. If I want to find that meta-4 repper, right now I can search for "Solace" and find only meta-4 reppers in a few seconds. But if all meta-4 items are now simply designated as "Prototype," suddenly I have a screen filled with random junk. And that will happen for any other search aside from "Prototype Remote Armor." I suppose I should remind you that the game's market search function is so primitive that entering the name of a module out of sequence (for example, "Large Remote") will not return useful results.
The second option makes more sense. But from what I've seen with the propulsion mods, I don't think this is the route you're planning on.
A much better solution would be to modify item icons to show meta level. That would preserve flavor, and would let people tell at a glance what the meta level of the item is. But maybe there are other considerations preventing the introduction of new icons. It took months to revert back to old item icons. It took literally years to get different icons for microwarp drives and afterburners, and to have BPC icons that were slightly different from BPO icons.
Or you could just sort items on market by meta level instead of by name. That wouldn't put any load on the art department, and should require minimal coding.
In general, how many folk have seriously complained about module names being confusing? I've seen one person complain about them. He is a blogger who for some incomprehensible reason decided to try and "explain" EVE's naming convention to a new player, instead of simply pointing them to the "show info" function.
Or is this one of those things some nameless suit in marketing cooked up? Because it takes all of five seconds to click "show info" on a module to figure out its meta level, and after the first few times anyone capable of turning on a computer will know what the meta-4 named item is, or the meta-3, and I think anyone capable of breathing can tell what the Tech-2 variant of an item is. I know that the current trend is dumb down everything in a game until an illiterate idiot can play it, but for ****'s sake does CCP really have to jump on that bandwagon as well? |
|
Zendon Taredi
ZT Bank
16
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 23:09:00 -
[261] - Quote
Well, the streak of good decisions is over. I hate this! |
Entity
X-Factor Industries Synthetic Existence
100
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 23:11:00 -
[262] - Quote
Oh also, while we're at it, let's rename all the ships!
Minmatar Supercarrier Gallente Covert-ops Frigate Gallente Drone Battleship Gallente Advanced Drone Cruiser Caldari Mission Battleship Caldari Advanced Mission Battleship Amarr PVP Battleship Limited Issue
I mean, "Megathron" tells me absolutely nothing about what the ship does. it's so confusing!
...
...
(That was sarcasm btw) GòªGûæGûæGûæGûæGûæGûæGòæGûæGûæGûæGòöGòùGûæGòæGûæGòæGûæGòöGòùGûæGòªGòæGûæGòöGòùGòöGòªGòùGòöGòù GòæGûæGòöGòùGòöGòùGòöGòúGûæGòöGòùGòáGûæGûæGòáGûæGòáGòùGòáGò¥GûæGòæGòáGûæGòáGò¥GòæGòæGòæGòÜGòù Gò¬GòÉGòÜGò¥GòæGûæGòÜGò¥GûæGòÜGò¥GòæGûæGûæGòÜGò¥GòæGòæGòÜGò¥GûæGò¬GòÜGò¥GòÜGò¥GòæGûæGòæGòÜGò¥ Got Item? | [topic=6504]EVE API?[/topic] | [topic=6501]Cache?[/topic] |
Dumgard
Sigma Dynamics
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 23:17:00 -
[263] - Quote
Entity wrote:Oh also, while we're at it, let's rename all the ships! Minmatar Supercarrier Gallente Covert-ops Frigate Gallente Drone Battleship Gallente Advanced Drone Cruiser Caldari Mission Battleship Caldari Advanced Mission Battleship Amarr PVP Battleship Limited Issue I mean, "Megathron" tells me absolutely nothing about what the ship does. it's so confusing! ... ... (That was sarcasm btw) Gallente Frigates 1, 2, and 3 also. |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
980
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 23:17:00 -
[264] - Quote
I wish I could rename certain CCP devs and specially their superiors. Sad part is that the forum software would probably censor most parts of them.
Get |
Mashie Saldana
Veto. Veto Corp
424
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 23:18:00 -
[265] - Quote
Please add "Elite" to the name of meta 5 modules/ammo. Dominique Vasilkovsky Mashie Saldana Monica Foulkes |
Frank Madox
Solarwind Interstellar Mining and Production Ltd
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 23:19:00 -
[266] - Quote
One more thing I would like to throw out there is that (well from what I feel anyways) by over simplifying the names of all modules to the current Upgraded > limited > Experimental > Prototype, you might create a negative new player impression. In the sense that they lose 1. some of the immersion factor and 2. A loss in the ability (or at least the impression of) being able to customize their characters.
number 1 is pretty straight forward so i'll go on to my second point. At EVE's current status our ships are pretty much what makes us, us. Yes, we have the avatars and the CQs but what we spend a majority of our time in is our ships and as with many MMOs out there, players would with to be something that distinguishes them from the rest.
In the case of EVE, making oneself feel "special" is a bit tricky. We are, in some sense, defined by what we fly. The current naming system, tricky and confusing as it may be to new players, gives us the impression that we are creating something special when we add on that "N-Type something or other" or that "PWNAGE" painter. By naming everything (guns/prop mods/hardners etc.) with generic conventions we effectively remove this feeling. If I was a newer player and my ship basically was fitted with everything that had names beginning with "Prototype" and nothing else, I would personally feel rather underwhelmed. I would feel rather rather generic.
anyways, TLDR. We need the fluff, because the fluff makes stuff sound cool. derp!
|
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
980
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 23:19:00 -
[267] - Quote
How about fixing the log instead - for example.
You could actually add some tabs to it for different damage types, drones and so on...
Too much work? Thought so.
Get |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
281
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 23:25:00 -
[268] - Quote
Some of you guys talking about how changing module names into some coherent naming convention is 'dumbing down' are terrible people and should be embarrassed of yourselves. Having said that, I'm not much of a fan of the rather bland proposals that have been put forward either. How about providing an at-a-glance meta indication whilst keeping something of the original name? Tech levels are indicated by a I or II at the end of the name, meta levels could easily be represented by an a,b,c,d,e suffix in the same way. Tidy up some of the more awkward names, and we're in business.
Also, yes, the 'array' thing is kind of irritating. If some renaming is needed how about :
'Standard Missile Launcher' 'Heavy Missile Launchers' 'Dual Standard Missile Launcher' (formally Assault Missile Launchers) 'Standard Rocket Launchers' (formally Rocket Launchers) 'Heavy Rocket Launchers' (formally Heavy Assault Missile Launchers) ~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
50
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 23:29:00 -
[269] - Quote
Welp, I feel a bit bad for quoting myself on a similar topic for the third time; but seeing as CCP is actually reading the thread, I figure I should probably also paste my suggestion in the official blogthread.
JamesCLK wrote:This is why we need search tags.
That way modules can be named whatever [the frack] CCP wants and we'll still find all launchers when we search for 'launcher'.
To clarify, tags would be an array of words (strings/chars) that is separate from the name and which are defined by relevancy. Eg. the tag 'Propulsion' would be anything under the propulsion module tree; hardener is all shield and armor hardeners; explosive is anything that either deals or protects from explosive, etc...
By searching for multiple tags, you can narrow down the search. Eg: 'armour hardener explosive meta3' would return just the meta 3 explosive armour hardener. 'armour hardener meta3' would return all meta 3 armour hardeners. The order of the tags and capitilization in the search wouldn't matter. Also allows you to define search queries based on terms such as meta, tech, gun size (eg. Large/Medium/Small) or weapon type (hybrid, projectile, laser, launcher).
Thoughts? |
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
166
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 23:30:00 -
[270] - Quote
What about reverting all the name changes and adding label system ("armor", "explosive", "hardener")? Labels could be shown in popup when you hover cursor over item (so that nobody gets confused wtf does this item do), they could be used for search along with plain-text type name match. Like, if you search for "meta5 exlosive hardener", all tech 2 armor/shield explosive hardeners will be shown, along with plain-text matches.
This way items can be named anyhow, keeping immersion of old names and usability of new ones. |
|
Buhhdust Princess
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
42
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 23:30:00 -
[271] - Quote
Because Light Missile Arrays and Light Missile Launchers aren't going to get confused..
CCP, just quit while you're ahead, also, give me back my Scourge Fury Heavy Missiles, scourge sounds much cooler.
oh btw u should probably rename EMP ammo to "Republic Fleet Slightly EM Slightly Explosive Damage S/M/L"
-Buhhd |
Random Womble
Emo Rangers Electric Monkey Overlords
8
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 23:31:00 -
[272] - Quote
Frank Madox wrote: In the case of EVE, making oneself feel "special" is a bit tricky. We are, in some sense, defined by what we fly. The current naming system, tricky and confusing as it may be to new players, gives us the impression that we are creating something special when we add on that "N-Type something or other" or that "PWNAGE" painter. By naming everything (guns/prop mods/hardners etc.) with generic conventions we effectively remove this feeling. If I was a newer player and my ship basically was fitted with everything that had names beginning with "Prototype" and nothing else, I would personally feel rather underwhelmed. I would feel rather rather generic.
I had forgotten about the named target painters. Now that is a classic case of unconventional names adding winsauce to the meat of the game and the Dev that named them originally should have been Knighted for services to awesomeness.
There is also a bit of a theme to the meta level in terms of word length>alphabetical + general all round cool level.
PWN>PWND>PWNT>PWNAGE |
albert camus
Corp 1 Allstars
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 23:31:00 -
[273] - Quote
FIRE THIS GUY NOW!!!! |
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
50
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 23:34:00 -
[274] - Quote
I too fear for my Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron... |
Cid Kincaid
Kagan-Kincaid Enterprises LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 23:34:00 -
[275] - Quote
Please stop taking away the immersion of our simulated universe by standardizing the naming system. There are many ways that you can clarify the quality of the modules without raping their traditional names. How about a mouse over tooltip or an inventory column that sorts by meta level instead? |
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
769
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 23:34:00 -
[276] - Quote
You know instead of renaming crap. why not do the old suggestion of putting a number on the picture.
BUT!!!! instead of using the triangle use a square or something. |
Dumgard
Sigma Dynamics
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 23:37:00 -
[277] - Quote
JamesCLK wrote:Welp, I feel a bit bad for quoting myself on a similar topic for the third time; but seeing as CCP is actually reading the thread, I figure I should probably also paste my suggestion in the official blogthread. JamesCLK wrote:This is why we need search tags.
That way modules can be named whatever [the frack] CCP wants and we'll still find all launchers when we search for 'launcher'.
To clarify, tags would be an array of words (strings/chars) that is separate from the name and which are defined by relevancy. Eg. the tag 'Propulsion' would be anything under the propulsion module tree; hardener is all shield and armor hardeners; explosive is anything that either deals or protects from explosive, etc...
By searching for multiple tags, you can narrow down the search. Eg: 'armour hardener explosive meta3' would return just the meta 3 explosive armour hardener. 'armour hardener meta3' would return all meta 3 armour hardeners. The order of the tags and capitilization in the search wouldn't matter. Also allows you to define search queries based on terms such as meta, tech, gun size (eg. Large/Medium/Small) or weapon type (hybrid, projectile, laser, launcher). Thoughts? someone hire this guy |
Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
68
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 23:37:00 -
[278] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Some of you guys talking about how changing module names into some coherent naming convention is 'dumbing down' are terrible people and should be embarrassed of yourselves. Having said that, I'm not much of a fan of the rather bland proposals that have been put forward either. How about providing an at-a-glance meta indication whilst keeping something of the original name? Tech levels are indicated by a I or II at the end of the name, meta levels could easily be represented by an a,b,c,d,e suffix in the same way. Tidy up some of the more awkward names, and we're in business.
The purpose of the naming change is to allow players to tell at a glance the meta level of an item. I have no problem with that goal. There are a lot of ways of achieving it. The proposed implant naming change is a good example of how names can both retain flavor and convey useful information. I absolutely do not understand why CCP couldn't come up with a similar system for meta modules. I'd be happy with alpha suffixes denoting meta levels, or even the whole 'Prototype' nonsense being incorporated into existing names. So would most other folk. But simply changing all item names to the same four reeks of lazy thinking. At this point we might as well rename all Tachyon beams to "Big Beam Laser" or something. |
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
50
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 23:39:00 -
[279] - Quote
Dumgard wrote:someone hire this guy
Won't be looking for work for another 4 years unfortunately; studying game development and whatnot. Maybe after I pass my BaHons
Or possibly an internship in a few years, dunno... I get the feeling I'll need to buy some (read: a lot of) beer for the devs at a future fanfest first
I'm not exactly opposed to name changes in the system tbth, these just aren't that great - I suspect some CCPers already know this somehow |
klar valimar
Colossus Technologies Project Wildfire
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 23:45:00 -
[280] - Quote
Not a big supporter of these changes. I liked the different names. Provided originality and creativity. Now searching for an item in market will be a nightmare.
Also feel sorry for any players that try to come back to the game after a break. The heavy assault missile launcher is now the assault missile launcher - huh.
Again removing the complexity from the game. Soon I will get be able to hit the easy button and win the game.
The only area I ever found confusing was implants.
oh well at least I will not have think when I play the game.
EASY BUTTON FTW |
|
Irori Neri
Pain Arising
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 23:47:00 -
[281] - 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. |
Erim Solfara
inFluX.
37
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 23:52:00 -
[282] - Quote
I just typed a sodding ESSAY, and the forum swallowed it. I'm disgruntled. |
Entity
X-Factor Industries Synthetic Existence
103
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 23:57:00 -
[283] - Quote
Fixed the name card in the devblog! GòªGûæGûæGûæGûæGûæGûæGòæGûæGûæGûæGòöGòùGûæGòæGûæGòæGûæGòöGòùGûæGòªGòæGûæGòöGòùGòöGòªGòùGòöGòù GòæGûæGòöGòùGòöGòùGòöGòúGûæGòöGòùGòáGûæGûæGòáGûæGòáGòùGòáGò¥GûæGòæGòáGûæGòáGò¥GòæGòæGòæGòÜGòù Gò¬GòÉGòÜGò¥GòæGûæGòÜGò¥GûæGòÜGò¥GòæGûæGûæGòÜGò¥GòæGòæGòÜGò¥GûæGò¬GòÜGò¥GòÜGò¥GòæGûæGòæGòÜGò¥ Got Item? | [topic=6504]EVE API?[/topic] | [topic=6501]Cache?[/topic] |
Dumgard
Sigma Dynamics
6
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 23:58:00 -
[284] - Quote
Erim Solfara wrote:I just typed a sodding ESSAY, and the forum swallowed it. I'm disgruntled. That's CCP's new "Intelligence Filter", for situations like these.
In order to stop people from making long forum posts which may show how poorly thought out the developer's changes are, CCP's forum now eliminates said posts with a vengeance. |
Devore Sekk
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 23:59:00 -
[285] - Quote
Salpad wrote:Won't market search become trickier, though?
Because typing "Cold-gas" is just so much more logical than "limited after"? You know what meta you want, and you know what module, instead of remembering dozens of arcane and arbitrary names. I don't think this removes any fitting complexity, or depth from the game. It's pointless tedium that serves no purpose. Everyone has to either remember the names, or look them up every time, and there is no in-game advantage to remembering the names, hence, pointless tedium. You can still master the faction/deadspace/officer names to lord over the common masses.
Standardizing the names makes sense to me. The labels they've chosen, not so much, how is upgraded better than limited? Isn't prototype and experimental the same? Why array to stick out from amongst the launchers?
Someone also suggested better market sorting, to sort by group by meta, which makes sense regardless of name changes. |
Devore Sekk
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 00:00:00 -
[286] - Quote
Dumgard wrote:Erim Solfara wrote:I just typed a sodding ESSAY, and the forum swallowed it. I'm disgruntled. That's CCP's new "Intelligence Filter", for situations like these. In order to stop people from making long forum posts which may show how poorly thought out the developer's changes are, CCP's forum now eliminates said posts with a vengeance.
I've learned to ctrl-a crtl-c a decade ago before trusting any significant chunk of text to the intertubes. |
Infinion
Awesome Corp
31
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 00:02:00 -
[287] - Quote
Dumgard wrote:Erim Solfara wrote:I just typed a sodding ESSAY, and the forum swallowed it. I'm disgruntled. That's CCP's new "Intelligence Filter", for situations like these. In order to stop people from making long forum posts which may show how poorly thought out the developer's changes are, CCP's forum now eliminates said posts with a vengeance.
I don't use the forum message box anymore. I type everything in word and then copy paste |
Erim Solfara
inFluX.
38
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 00:02:00 -
[288] - Quote
Devore Sekk wrote:Dumgard wrote:Erim Solfara wrote:I just typed a sodding ESSAY, and the forum swallowed it. I'm disgruntled. That's CCP's new "Intelligence Filter", for situations like these. In order to stop people from making long forum posts which may show how poorly thought out the developer's changes are, CCP's forum now eliminates said posts with a vengeance. I've learned to ctrl-a crtl-c a decade ago before trusting any significant chunk of text to the intertubes.
I usually do, didn't this time =/
|
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
485
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 00:04:00 -
[289] - Quote
Rename trauma missiles for gods sake to something that isn;'t stupid.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Dumgard
Sigma Dynamics
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 00:16:00 -
[290] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote: Rename trauma missiles for gods sake to something that isn;'t stupid.
Because CCP thinks Trauma is so much more descriptive than Scourge when it comes to explaining that the missile does Kinetic damage... |
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
533
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 00:33:00 -
[291] - Quote
Hey dudes!
Thanks for the feedback. It seems like the implants are being pretty well received (under the circumstances) but the missiles not so much. We'll sit down in the morning and look at the possible solutions. Thanks for posting! |
|
Szilardis
Phoibe Enterprises
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 00:37:00 -
[292] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Hey dudes!
Thanks for the feedback. It seems like the implants are being pretty well received (under the circumstances) but the missiles not so much. We'll sit down in the morning and look at the possible solutions. Thanks for posting!
And the modules don't seem to be recieved with open arms, either. For a reason. |
Diamonica Norya
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 00:42:00 -
[293] - Quote
also agreeing with the implants change +1 to that
as for all the other names, please don't change them. I've sold enough overpriced traumas to ppl to date that I really missed the old scourge days. I still don't get used to selling these traumas even now as we speak.
If you are looking to improve intuitiveness and remove obscurity for new players, there are already more than dozens of suggestions posted by brilliant ppl.
One more suggestion, why don't you just simply look into why people relies on 3rd party tools so much to enhance their gameplay experience? that's not because of the names, it's all other functions that are missing from your game client that people who developed the 3rd party tools does better and provides.
maybe an icon on the other corner showing meta level, search by groupid, show meta column in variations tab in show info window....etc...
Yes, I roleplay much. Monoclegate didn't make me want to unsub, this does. Your precious time could be spent on something else more useful making Eve a better world for us than wasted trying to change all the names and bring us hell.
I am a module collector, so when all my hangers are filled with experimental, upgraded, prototype, limited...etc. not to mention even more trauma, I don't think I'll handle anymore. |
Purple Madness
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 00:43:00 -
[294] - Quote
How about you just rename the named modules Type 1-4 (or Mk 1-4), so people don't have to remember the difference between upgraded, limited, experimental, prototype..
because frankly upgraded sounds the best out of those 4 to me, and yet it's the meta 1 version? While the initiative is great, seeing as the current module nomenclature is absurd, you might as well go all the way instead of just introducing a 'less bad' nomenclature. |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3338
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 00:51:00 -
[295] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Hey dudes!
Thanks for the feedback. It seems like the implants are being pretty well received (under the circumstances) but the missiles not so much. We'll sit down in the morning and look at the possible solutions. Thanks for posting!
Thank you for listening finally, please mull over this thread and the previous one in the moning please and seriously consider what we're trying to do to meet your goals (making it easier for newer players) while pleasing current player base.
|
Fozzy Dorsai
State War Academy Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 00:51:00 -
[296] - Quote
I ask forgiveness if some of this has been covered already as I'm lazy and don't want to read all the posts. Since you've gone ahead and renamed all the missiles, how about going ahead and renaming the FoF versions to match? I also suggest putting the "Advanced" at the end of the missile classification. So the group Advanced Assault Missile becomes Assault Missile Advanced. That way when I sort on group, I get all the Assault Missiles together. |
Sarmatiko
544
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 00:54:00 -
[297] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Hey dudes! Thanks for the feedback. It seems like the implants are being pretty well received (under the circumstances) but the missiles not so much. We'll sit down in the morning and look at the possible solutions. Thanks for posting!
Nobody likes Trauma missiles That's the first thing that should be changed. Any random name will do better because Trauma reminds human beings about NSFL things, not about missiles in spaceships game. |
Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 00:56:00 -
[298] - Quote
While I do appreciate that some modules are named in ways that don't necessarily make sense, and are counter intuitive, I will have to agree with the "dumbing down" criticism. EVE, for all its faults, has flavor. It's a game that is complex and rightfully so. In fact, the complexity is what draws many people to the game.
"Standardizing" names might make sense from a new player point of view, but keep in mind that you're also doing this at the expense of your current players. Retaining the names affects new players. Changing the names affect everyone.
You are also facing the risk of going too "bland" with your naming schemes. To be honest, one of the reasons for why I'm sticking to EVE rather than playing another game is the flavor and immersion. I've seen too many space games where equipment names are standardized, and the immersion falls flat. It feels mechanical and automated, and not at all like a living universe that has had years upon years of maturing.
Making this effort to ensure that newer players can easier keep track of equipment is a good thing, but doing it this way is, in my opinion, misdirected. The problem is not in the naming - which will confuse newer players regardless of the names, but instead an accessibility issue.
To understand this, look at other popular MMOs, such as WoW, SW:TOR, Rift etc. One thing they all have in common is item coloration. It doesn't matter what an item is named, you know that the gray stuff is worthless, just sell it to a vendor. The white stuff is useful as a new player, but not for much more. Green stuff, that's where you start getting the good stats, blues and you're getting there, and so on.
So, what do EVE have that compares to this?
Well, we have the "Tech level triangle". You know, the orange thing for T2, Red for T3, green for faction etc. This little triangle tells you, at a glance, how good a piece of equipment is. It's even present in list-mode of your hangars.
Instead of changing things around by standardizing names, and making EVE more bland, how about extending the meta-tags for named items as well? That'd ensure that there are visual ques for newer players, and it'd also help veteran players in quickly finding the right gear. Additionally, add another sort option to item containers, namely sort by meta-level. That makes a lot more sense than an unnecessary standardization of items that are part of EVE core gameplay.
Oh, and while you're at it, change back missile names and add damage type icons to ammo. That makes a lot more sense, and is easier for both new and old players to grasp.
+1 heavy missile of lighting, anyone? |
Lord Haur
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 01:03:00 -
[299] - Quote
Forums ate my initial reply :/
I'm going to go through the listed changes piece by piece:
Meta Module names I can understand why, but I think the meta names could do with being improved. Limited just doesn't make sense, and Prototype/Experimental doesn't sit right either.
As for actual changes: the proposed meta launchers should be a blueprint for further changes. They retain the current meta flavorname with the new meta identifier put infront. I can live with that.
I'm not so keen on the meta armor hardener changes however, it'll be a shame losing the N-type hardeners etc, but overly long names are overly long.
Skill Hardwirings Another good change - it increases functionality for ALL implants, although for all those who memorised the bonuses of the Caldari/Minmatar implant sets, it sucks a little.
Armor damage types While the armor plating and shield hardener names were a bit wierd, I'm ok with this change. You also just tripled the (already numerous) results when searching for "kinetic" ingame though.
Missile Launcher names Good, apart from the Assault Missile Launcher being renamed to "Light Missile Array". It needs to have "Light Missile Launcher" in there somewhere, whether it's "Rapid Light Missile Launcher" or "Light Missile Launcher Array", either works for me.
As noted above, nice to see the existing flavor meta names kept alongside the new meta identifiers.
Scripts Why wasn't this done when they were introduced?
Previous changes Please redo the T2 missile names, moving the T2 missile type in front of the damage type. It makes so much sense to include the t2 varients when doing a search for "Trauma Light Missile", I don't even.
Afterburner/MWD names: FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND ALL THAT IS HOLY fix the AB/MWD meta levels. Currently, we have three meta 3 and one meta 2 afterburners, and one of each meta 1, 2, 3, and 4 MWDs. This makes no sense, where before the change "Cataluzed Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters" clearly was similar to a "Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters", sharing meta levels, Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I shares no indication that it's the best meta 1MN MWD, akin to the Experimental 1MN Afterburner I being the best meta 1MN AB. Make all meta MWDs/ABs meta 3, except for the renamed Monopropellant Hydrazine Boosters, which should be meta 1. |
Erim Solfara
inFluX.
39
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 01:07:00 -
[300] - Quote
Ok, trying for a second time.
Implants change - great, makes sense, retains flavour.
Launcher and meta-level changes, awful, in the case of the former, doesn't make more sense than current, and adds a confusing change to the name of a different module already in existance and whatnot.
Suggestions:
1. Make rockets 'light rockets'
Light Rockets, Light Rocket Launcher Light Missiles, Light Missile Launcher
Light Missiles, Assault Light Missile Launcher
Make 'Heavy Assault Missiles' into 'Heavy Rockets'. [Big change, but a consistent one, after all, HAMs are the cruiser equivalent of rockets.
Heavy Rockets, Heavy Rocket Launcher Heavy Missiles, Heavy Missile Launcher
Hypothetically: Heavy Missiles, Assault Heavy Missile Launcher.
Consistency added, no confusing name changes, only bringing 'assault missiles' under the 'rockets' group. 'Assault' in context of a launcher means oversized faster firing launcher, i.e. special name, special module, appropriate ammo in the name.
2. Do for modules what you've done for implants.
Dual-sheathed Reflective Plating I becomes Dual-sheathed Reflective Plating P-2RF
N-Type Reactive Membrane I becomes N-Type Reactive Membrane PE-4RA
P stands for Plating, EP stands for Energized Plating, the first number is the meta level, and the last two letters are
RF - Reflective RA - Reactive RP - Repulsive CD - Conductive
PE-4RA is a energized plating, meta-level 4, of type reactive.
Nb. it's PE instead of EP because that means searching for 'PE-4' will show meta-level 4 energized plates, and exclude unenergized ones of meta-level 4. Easy searchability.
That little degree of separation between 'IT DOES THIS', and 'it's a reactive, so that's for explosive damage' is all that's needed, we're not idiots, we don't need it spelling out for us exactly, it breaks immersion.
Let's take it a step further.
Guns are categorised by size.
Medium Afocal Pulse Maser I becomes Medium Afocal Microwave Pulse Laser F-1PM
F for frigate, 1 for meta-level 1, PM is flavour. Want to search for frigate guns? 'Pulse Laser F-' will give you all frigate pulse lasers, and you can add a number to the end of that for a specific meta-level.
Dual Modal Heavy Laser I becomes Dual Modal Heavy Pulse Laser B-2HL
B for battleship, meta-level 2, flavour characters.
Dual 650mm 'Scout' Repeating Artillery I becomes Dual 650mm 'Scout' Autocannon B-4RA
Battleship, meta-4. Searchable, and quickly distinguishable from other meta-levels.
this is what I would like to see, not a blanket rename of all meta modules. You may as well call them 'Frigate Afterburner A', 'Frigate Afterburner B', etc
Utterly soulless. |
|
ScooterPuff Sr
Galactic BANDITOS
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 01:19:00 -
[301] - Quote
firmly against all the name changes including the ones that have recently happened. i don't care if a noob doesn't know how to ask a question and see whats what. it made sense beforehand. this idea should be thrown out the window and ccp should pretend they never thought about it.
OLE!
|
Elieza
Vanguard Frontiers Intrepid Crossing
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 01:21:00 -
[302] - Quote
Count me as another vote for keeping things the way they have been. One of the best things about EVE is the flavor and uniqueness, if you take that away, it loses something in the translation.
I would actually suggest that you take a moment and consider doing something like other MMOs do. They have tooltips which give you all of the information you want. You already show this information in "show info", you don't need to have it as part of the item name, too. |
ScooterPuff Sr
Galactic BANDITOS
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 01:23:00 -
[303] - Quote
Elieza wrote:Count me as another vote for keeping things the way they have been. One of the best things about EVE is the flavor and uniqueness, if you take that away, it loses something in the translation.
I would actually suggest that you take a moment and consider doing something like other MMOs do. They have tooltips which give you all of the information you want. You already show this information in "show info", you don't need to have it as part of the item name, too. or remove the info tabs. raise the eve bar again ADIOS MY AMIGOS
|
OutCast EG
Very Industrial Corp. Legion of xXDEATHXx
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 01:43:00 -
[304] - Quote
Quote:Standard Missile Launchers have become Light Missile Launchers
Siege Launchers have become Torpedo Launchers Like this.Quote:Heavy Assault Missile Launchers have become Assault Missile Launchers
Assault Missile Launchers have become Light Missile Arrays Don't like this.
Keep up good work anyways! |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3338
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 01:43:00 -
[305] - Quote
Light Missile Battery Launcher?
|
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke
50
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 01:56:00 -
[306] - Quote
So, Blizzard and CCP are going to drop their game-name brands too? And use the same one?
I do not see why Zainou, Genolution and all the others would suddenly use the same brand names. As companies, that would weaken their product. You break the immersion of your gameworld with panic-broadcasts.
If you want to help players navigating the market, teach it PCRE or abbreviations like LSE and MWD. |
Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 01:56:00 -
[307] - Quote
Pallidum Treponema wrote:While I do appreciate that some modules are named in ways that don't necessarily make sense, and are counter intuitive, I will have to agree with the "dumbing down" criticism. EVE, for all its faults, has flavor. It's a game that is complex and rightfully so. In fact, the complexity is what draws many people to the game.
"Standardizing" names might make sense from a new player point of view, but keep in mind that you're also doing this at the expense of your current players. Retaining the names affects new players. Changing the names affect everyone.
You are also facing the risk of going too "bland" with your naming schemes. To be honest, one of the reasons for why I'm sticking to EVE rather than playing another game is the flavor and immersion. I've seen too many space games where equipment names are standardized, and the immersion falls flat. It feels mechanical and automated, and not at all like a living universe that has had years upon years of maturing.
Making this effort to ensure that newer players can easier keep track of equipment is a good thing, but doing it this way is, in my opinion, misdirected. The problem is not in the naming - which will confuse newer players regardless of the names, but instead an accessibility issue.
To understand this, look at other popular MMOs, such as WoW, SW:TOR, Rift etc. One thing they all have in common is item coloration. It doesn't matter what an item is named, you know that the gray stuff is worthless, just sell it to a vendor. The white stuff is useful as a new player, but not for much more. Green stuff, that's where you start getting the good stats, blues and you're getting there, and so on.
So, what do EVE have that compares to this?
Well, we have the "Tech level triangle". You know, the orange thing for T2, Red for T3, green for faction etc. This little triangle tells you, at a glance, how good a piece of equipment is. It's even present in list-mode of your hangars.
Instead of changing things around by standardizing names, and making EVE more bland, how about extending the meta-tags for named items as well? That'd ensure that there are visual ques for newer players, and it'd also help veteran players in quickly finding the right gear. Additionally, add another sort option to item containers, namely sort by meta-level. That makes a lot more sense than an unnecessary standardization of items that are part of EVE core gameplay.
Oh, and while you're at it, change back missile names and add damage type icons to ammo. That makes a lot more sense, and is easier for both new and old players to grasp.
+1 heavy missile of lighting, anyone?
Illustrating what I'm talking about: http://i.imgur.com/1TMtE.jpg
|
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
723
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 01:59:00 -
[308] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote: Yes, keep these (actually, no) Scourge - poison dmg? Bloodclaw - blood? red? explosion or thermal dmg? Cataclysm - wth? Wrath - anger dmg? Bane - death dmg? Thunderbolt - lightning dmg? Widowmaker - instgib dmg?
Yes, lets keep these, because they are supereasy to understand and remember.......
If you go back to the original thread, the suggestion from the players was along the lines of:
Scourge Heavy Missile -> Kinetic 'Scourge' Heavy Missile Bloodclaw Light Missile -> Kinetic 'Bloodclaw' Light Missile Paradise Cruise Missile -> EM 'Paradise' Cruise Missile
Which would have made both sides happy. It would have been more obvious that "Scourge" missiles do Kinetic damage, but you'd still be able to search for "Scourge" and get a very short list. You'd still be able to tell someone "bring me 5k units of Scourge" and not have to worry that they'd bring back the wrong ammo type (vs. having to say "bring me 5k units of Trauma Heavy Missiles"). |
SghnDubh
BattleClinic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 02:01:00 -
[309] - Quote
Not sure if anyone's going to read this post, 16+ pages in, but...
Renaming modules seems like a solution in search of a problem.
|
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
723
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 02:04:00 -
[310] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote:Noes, eventually RRT's will become 1600mm Prototype armour plates. :(
To be honest, the areas where these improvements will be most advantageous will be the armour hardeners and reflective plating; I can never remember whether the voltaic is better than the nanite.
A middle ground might be:
Meta 0 - plain old name Meta 1 - plain old name + upgraded Meta 2 - plain old name + improved Meta 3 - the existing fancy names Meta 4 - the existing fancy and unique and memorable names
Meta 0: Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane I Meta 1: Upgraded Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane I Meta 2: Improved Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane I Meta 3: Radioisotope Adaptive Nano Membrane I Meta 4: N-Type Adaptive Nano Membrane I
For the younger players, this means that if they see "Upgraded" or "Improved" (or some other standard attribute) that they can just remember "oh, that's meta 1 or 2, slightly better then the base unit". The more flavorful names stick around for the version that matter (which are the Meta 3/4).
|
|
Galphii
Furnulum pani nolo THE SPACE P0LICE
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 02:05:00 -
[311] - Quote
I applaud this continued effort to have fitting names make more sense, especially the 'heavy assault/assault launcher' clusfterf*** that has been driving people crazy ever since they were introduced.
And anyone that hates these changes is simply bitter and annoyed that because they were forced to learn the ridiculous old naming system, other new players should have to suffer as well. These changes will help newer players get a grasp of the game with greater ease, and that's a good thing for EvE in general. |
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
71
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 02:05:00 -
[312] - Quote
Some changes are good
Some changes are bad
Your changes are stupid
You're causing more confusion than you attempt to prevent |
Szilardis
Phoibe Enterprises
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 02:09:00 -
[313] - Quote
Pallidum Treponema wrote:
This is awesome! |
Silence 133
EVE University Ivy League
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 02:09:00 -
[314] - Quote
Thank you for this, I never quite got the hang of all those afterburner names and what size they were. |
Ajita al Tchar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
87
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 02:18:00 -
[315] - Quote
JamesCLK wrote:Welp, I feel a bit bad for quoting myself on a similar topic for the third time; but seeing as CCP is actually reading the thread, I figure I should probably also paste my suggestion in the official blogthread. JamesCLK wrote:This is why we need search tags.
That way modules can be named whatever [the frack] CCP wants and we'll still find all launchers when we search for 'launcher'.
To clarify, tags would be an array of words (strings/chars) that is separate from the name and which are defined by relevancy. Eg. the tag 'Propulsion' would be anything under the propulsion module tree; hardener is all shield and armor hardeners; explosive is anything that either deals or protects from explosive, etc...
By searching for multiple tags, you can narrow down the search. Eg: 'armour hardener explosive meta3' would return just the meta 3 explosive armour hardener. 'armour hardener meta3' would return all meta 3 armour hardeners. The order of the tags and capitilization in the search wouldn't matter. Also allows you to define search queries based on terms such as meta, tech, gun size (eg. Large/Medium/Small) or weapon type (hybrid, projectile, laser, launcher). Thoughts?
I also had a similar idea. TBH I think it's a little... weak that the current search mechanic relies entirely on the string of the name and doesn't have anything like what's outlined below. Obviously, a very very basic regexp (the kind that just matches on alphanumeric chars, whitespaces, and a few other characters; no *, + etc, although something better now exists for asset searches...) is a lot easier to implement, but come on. Tech progresses, conventions and expectations change, it's time to step it up and implement a more elegant solution that provides the user with much more powerful tools. Update the names (but don't smash their originality, RP value, etc). Update the way we search for stuff. Fix the damn Neocom. Well, I'll stop there, but yeah, this would go a long way toward providing a way nicer experience for all users, new and old. |
Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 02:18:00 -
[316] - Quote
Szilardis wrote:Pallidum Treponema wrote: This is awesome!
Thanks. All that's needed besides this is an option to sort by meta-level, and the ability to use the search box for item type.
If I type in "Afterburner", I want all afterburners, regardless of name. |
Roh Voleto
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
101
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 02:19:00 -
[317] - Quote
Wouldn't "Light Missile Battery" or "Light Missile Cluster" be more appropriate than "Light Missile Array"? |
Debir Achen
EVE University Ivy League
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 02:52:00 -
[318] - Quote
I think we're confusing "Streamlining" (removing excess bits to make things work more smoothly) and "Homogenising" (removing excess bits so everything looks the same). I don't see the streamlining here; just making things more bland.
Do you know how I solve the "meta level" issue? I use Pyfa. How does that help? Because Pyfa sorts the modules according to meta level! Do this - in show info variations, market, and "compare" - and add a little "1" to "4" icon on the corner of each meta-level module (like the existing "II", "III", and faction icons) and most of the problems go away, without sacrificing any flavour.
Instead, we add four generic adjectives that still don't sort right and aren't hierarchical in any meaningful manner.
(Caveat: people say "prototype" is the same as "experimental". That's only partly true. "Prototype" means "first of the type". The "prototype" of something new is potentially wow and better than what already exists. The "prototype" of something existing is old and has been superseded.)
If we must flatten the names, my suggestion was "Beta", "Enhanced", "Improved", "Upgraded" (or "Ultimate"). Like other similar suggestions, it sorts correctly by alphabet. They're still arbitrary, but at least there's an order.
In among all this, we're missing some key issues with missile launchers. There's this standardised nomenclature where Light / Medium / Heavy maps to Frigate / Cruiser / BS. Except where it doesn't. Missiles are one example: we have light / standard -> heavy -> cruise & siege / torpedo. And there are also the "Medium" and "Heavy" lasers. If we're going to standardise launchers, perhaps we could move missiles onto the standard size keywords?
(Yeah, I know that most of this has been said before, but consider this a "dislike" vote, if you will. Or a vote for "real problem, really misguided solution") |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Tactical Invader Syndicate
205
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 03:14:00 -
[319] - Quote
"Beta", "Enhanced", "Improved", "Upgraded" (or "Ultimate"). Is better then the meta sorting that we have now. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
40
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 03:24:00 -
[320] - Quote
Debir Achen wrote:I think we're confusing "Streamlining" (removing excess bits to make things work more smoothly) and "Homogenising" (removing excess bits so everything looks the same). I don't see the streamlining here; just making things more bland. Do you know how I solve the "meta level" issue? I use Pyfa. How does that help? Because Pyfa sorts the modules according to meta level! Do this - in show info variations, market, and "compare" - and add a little "1" to "4" icon on the corner of each meta-level module (like the existing "II", "III", and faction icons) and most of the problems go away, without sacrificing any flavour. Instead, we add four generic adjectives that still don't sort right and aren't hierarchical in any meaningful manner. (Caveat: people say "prototype" is the same as "experimental". That's only partly true. "Prototype" means "first of the type". The "prototype" of something new is potentially wow and better than what already exists. The "prototype" of something existing is old and has been superseded.) If we must flatten the names, my suggestion was "Beta", "Enhanced", "Improved", "Upgraded" (or "Ultimate"). Like other similar suggestions, it sorts correctly by alphabet. They're still arbitrary, but at least there's an order. In among all this, we're missing some key issues with missile launchers. There's this standardised nomenclature where Light / Medium / Heavy maps to Frigate / Cruiser / BS. Except where it doesn't. Missiles are one example: we have light / standard -> heavy -> cruise & siege / torpedo. And there are also the "Medium" and "Heavy" lasers. If we're going to standardise launchers, perhaps we could move missiles onto the standard size keywords? (Yeah, I know that most of this has been said before, but consider this a "dislike" vote, if you will. Or a vote for "real problem, really misguided solution") Not sure, upgraded sounds to weak to be the top dog. Like the idea of meta names being in alphabetical order. Prototype > Upgraded IMHO. Ultimate is a bit too much.
Either way the complete removal of flavor from the names seems cosmetically and immersively wrong.
Another personal opinion: "Medium" as a size term also feels weak as a descriptive term. Blasters, Lasers and missiles at the cruiser level all designate Heavy as a cruiser class mod, and the rest are named by caliber without any size description. Not sure how to reconcile it to the rest of the mods though. |
|
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
769
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 03:29:00 -
[321] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Hey dudes!
Thanks for the feedback. It seems like the implants are being pretty well received (under the circumstances) but the missiles not so much. We'll sit down in the morning and look at the possible solutions. Thanks for posting!
Be sure to post what you guys talked about.
More communication = more happy players
Edit - 3 snipes in 1 forum thread hell yea. |
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
258
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 03:36:00 -
[322] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Hey dudes!
Thanks for the feedback. It seems like the implants are being pretty well received (under the circumstances) but the missiles not so much. We'll sit down in the morning and look at the possible solutions. Thanks for posting! In case this hasn't been mentioned before, please don't forget about the modules, and especially the propulsion modules whose names were generified in one of the previous patches.
Thanks. |
Killian Skoff
Noob Fight Club Reckless Chavs
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 03:48:00 -
[323] - Quote
Every device had unique name during last 9 years and now CCP decided to rename it. It's a good idea? What's good in it? |
Jenn Makanen
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
165
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 03:59:00 -
[324] - Quote
By the looks of Sisi, they're playing with the names \o/
Prototype 'Arbalast' Assault Missile Launcher
Limited 'Limos' Rapid Light Missile Launcher
And as I have an eye for a good market, I'll be over in the corner here, selling smelling salts. |
Tahna Rouspel
BWE Special Forces
79
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 04:00:00 -
[325] - Quote
I think the name changes are a good thing. It's nice to have some flavour text, but not when it sacrifices efficiency. |
Arekhon
Unknown Soldiers RED.Legion
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 04:53:00 -
[326] - Quote
Tahna Rouspel wrote:I think the name changes are a good thing. It's nice to have some flavour text, but not when it sacrifices efficiency.
how does this add "flavour"? all it does is dumb the game down and make it more "bland"!! the module names made EVE stand out as more of a Sci-Fi game. now it will just seem like a "game" with cool ships.
hey put a medium 'Ghoul' energy vampire on there or hey put a limited energy vampire on there
what sounds better? EXACTLY |
Gevlin
EXPCS Corp SpaceMonkey's Alliance
110
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 05:29:00 -
[327] - Quote
Executive Summary Good direction... Go for it
Wall of text justification insert 5490 Characters of dialog will never read. and for the few that do, they will never get the full of the idea I am talking about as my gramer and spelling sucks so much !
I agree with several people: CCP needs to focus most of eve's recources on FIS, but the development of WIS still needs to continue, just as a slower and more efficient pace. In eve I wish to be more than just a machine. |
sever ing
Worms United
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 05:44:00 -
[328] - Quote
-Please, do not change the name of some iconic modules... The meta target painters come to mind !
-The proposed change do make sense, although I feel it is just change for the sake of change, without any need. It may help new player, and old player will be unhappy for a week and then adapt (webmaster of killboards and other tools will spend the week crying, but that's not unusual). But I feel it may destroy the feeling of a 'real', grown universe with variety and replace it with spreadsheet itemization. No soul, no reality. As an example, when I go shopping, I don't see row and row of: standart soup, green, 500ml bio soup, green, 500 ml light soup, green, 500ml quality soup, green, 500ml standart cookie, chocolate bio cookie, chocolate light cookie, chocolate quality cookie, chocolate.
-If you must, however, and speaking as a non-english native user, Meta Level 1: Upgraded Meta Level 2: Limited Meta Level 3: Experimental Meta Level 4: Prototype make little sense. limited don't sound better than upgraded, and what is the difference between experimental and prototype ?
-The script name change, however, is excellent and much appreciated !
Sever Ing |
Alexei Orlov
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 06:18:00 -
[329] - Quote
So, how many years will it take for new players googling "assault missile launcher" to stop getting confusing answers? The largest base of information for learning about the game comes from outside of the game. When you're done with all these changes how much of a disconnect will there be? How many contradictions will there be and for how many years before they finally filter out? |
Debir Achen
EVE University Ivy League
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 06:39:00 -
[330] - Quote
An alternative mechanism: add a "summary" or "description" field to each item. This field would show up on verbose views and as a sub-title in 'show info'. This could be something like "Missile Launcher Heavy Meta-4", which would provide a canonical description, be included in searches, and provide an accurate search order.
Though I still want the meta-level to show up on icons, and have ever since I discovered meta-levels and that T2 and faction items had icons. |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1077
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 06:43:00 -
[331] - Quote
Now you are getting it right.
It's unfortunate that most people fear change, even when it's obviously for the better.
When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
Tiger's Spirit
Troll Hunters INC.
47
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 06:55:00 -
[332] - Quote
Another dumb changes what we expected from CCP again. The names is the biggest problem in the game ? Really ??? |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
986
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 06:56:00 -
[333] - Quote
Naa... ccp wants to focus to little things even it requires some bulldozer to get the changes done, Creating something new as primary solution is out of the question. It ties resources and would need actual commitment to refocusing.
Get |
Lukas Rox
Torchwood Archive
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 07:06:00 -
[334] - Quote
I am usually good with adapting to changes, but this one gives me mixed feelings.
Yes, we need more fresh players. Yes, we need to dumb the game down a little bit.
But then again renaming all mods to one scheme will: * make 99% tutorials on the intrnet outdated * take the immersion factor away from item names * make market search even worse nightmare
Before missile name change, I could search market for Kinetic Heavy Missiles by writing "Scourge". I would get a few results for tech I, tech II and faction variants respectively. Easy? Yes. Now I must either search for Heavy, which gives me a lot of modules besides all types of Heavy and Heavy Assault missiles. To narrow it down I could search for "Trauma Heavy" but I still receive a lot more results than I really need. Or could search for "heavy Missile" but then I get all flaovours even though I'm looking for kinetic only. Is this helpful? Not at all.
Dear CCP Gnauton, I do appreciate your effort to simplify, but I think the way it's been done with misiles is not the way to go. Simplify to make it easier, not harder for players.
Implant changes are a good example of how to make it easier. Small Experimental "Ghoul" Energy Vampire is better than Small Experimental Energy Vampire, because it makes it easy to searh for, and still says what the meta level is. |
Charles Javeroux
INTERSTELLAR CREDIT Interstellar Trade Syndicate
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 07:09:00 -
[335] - Quote
Good news! The proposed change on the Hardwiring implants is much needed change into greater intelligence. I'm fairly certain that all my current and future clones will appreciated it |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
282
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 07:34:00 -
[336] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Hey dudes!
Thanks for the feedback. It seems like the implants are being pretty well received (under the circumstances) but the missiles not so much. We'll sit down in the morning and look at the possible solutions. Thanks for posting!
The new missile launcher names are bad because they don't clarify the range as a whole, they just shift the newbie confusion from HAML/AML to LML/LMA. More sensible would be to make HAMLs into Heavy Rocket Launchers and go from there.
As for the modules in general, its not hard to add a code-letter/number of some description to indicate meta level whilst retaining some of the original name, which would mostly appease both sides of opinion here. ~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Frank Pannon
Fearless Bandits Sk33t Fl33t
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 07:55:00 -
[337] - Quote
Dear CCP "Senior Writer" nr. 8 2nd floor "Middle cubicle next to water dispensing machine" <-- see what I did there
First off, implant name changes sound good, because the old naming system makes no sense.
But all the other just makes this game feel less science fiction and more spreadsheet sort of generic.
I play this game because I love sci-fi and want to have fun in such an environment with friends.
I really hate this idea of namechange. Someone already mentioned that allowing us to search market by meta level would solve a lot of problems.
I simply can not believe that such name changes will lure more players into this universe, or turn less players away.
I fear one day I will log into Eve, and you will rename my Vindicator dream ship into Megathron hull Faction "Dark" good PVP / not PVE ship nr. 2
|
Tiger's Spirit
Troll Hunters INC.
47
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 08:21:00 -
[338] - Quote
Frank Pannon wrote: I fear one day I will log into Eve, and you will rename my Vindicator dream ship into Megathron hull Faction "Dark" good PVP / not PVE ship nr. 2
Agree. Next time we will see Experimental Megathron. CCP still ruin the game continously. Many bug not fixed, but they first problem is the name changes. LOL
Ctrl+double click not working anymore. With the new overview patch fcked up the overview refresh. I understand CCP fight against the lag, but why ruins it, which working fine ???
Hidden nerf everywhere. Eve window refreshing rate increased everywhere. Asset items refreshing delaying up to 5 min. Double click on screen when try to navigate a ship is horrible slow. Security status check up from 15 minute to 20 minute. I would be able to list many changes which is ruins the game experience, but for the CCP the most important thing is the name changes. :(
|
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
352
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 08:23:00 -
[339] - Quote
I would very much like the reason for prioritizing this change NOW. What has changed since the last nine years that warrant this change?
And yes, these changes digs into the feeling of immersion, but goes well in hand with your ambition to make EVE more like a generic space FPS. Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook-á |
Darth Felin
Monkey Attack Squad Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 09:09:00 -
[340] - Quote
Interesting change
but Light Missile Launcher and Light Missile Array are still confusing maybe it is better to rename them to Light Missile Launcher and Rapid Light Missile Launcher? |
|
Khors
El Barco Pirata
52
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 09:17:00 -
[341] - Quote
Pallidum Treponema wrote: Oh, and while you're at it, change back missile names and add damage type icons to ammo. That makes a lot more sense, and is easier for both new and old players to grasp.
Missiles are already colour coded with their tips on the icons, even this suggestion wouldn't be needed.
Overall I agree with you and I think that CCP have misdirected some of their effort here. |
Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
25
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 09:22:00 -
[342] - Quote
Khors wrote:Pallidum Treponema wrote: Oh, and while you're at it, change back missile names and add damage type icons to ammo. That makes a lot more sense, and is easier for both new and old players to grasp.
Missiles are already colour coded with their tips on the icons, even this suggestion wouldn't be needed. Overall I agree with you and I think that CCP have misdirected some of their effort here.
There are more ammo types than missiles. ;) |
Plaude Pollard
Aliastra Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 09:30:00 -
[343] - Quote
CCP, could you please stop streamlining this? Anyone who bothers to actually sit down and look at the modules for long enough automatically learns what modules to keep and which to sell.
One of the best examples we have at the moment is Target Painters. You can learn how effective they are BY LOOKING AT THE BLOODY NAME! Just take the initials and you'll have: Meta-1: PWN (Partial Weapon Navigation) Meta-2: PWND (Periferal Weapon Navigation Diameter) Meta-3: PWNT (Parallel Weapon Navigation Transmitter) Meta-4: PWNAGE (Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron) Is it really that hard to tell Target Painters apart by looking at their names? I think not, so why bother? You're only going to make it harder for the majority of your players who've played for a long time. I've only played for 2-3 years now, and I can usually tell modules by their meta-level by just looking at their names. So don't you think some of the older players are able to do the same? As for newer players, they can learn what modules to use through the Rookie-help chat.
How hard can that be to memorize? Answer: Not very hard. So why change it? This isn't some other typical cookie-cutter MMO, where everything needs to be obvious to even the most oblivious players. This is EVE. It's meant to be hard. Same goes for the module-names.
Furthermore, don't you dare touch my Launchers! If you change the names of Launchers, you are most likely going to lose thousands of subscriptions, because it's easier to keep track of now, than it will be with your new naming-conventions. I'm not talking about the part with "Light Missile Arrays" instead of "Assault Missile Launchers". I'm talking about their Meta-level identifiers. Most people already know that 'Arbalest'-launchers are the best T1 launchers you can get on the market. I don't want to fly around with "Prototype Rocket Launchers". I want to fly around with "'Arbalest' Rocket Launchers". Why? First off, because Missile Launchers are already standardized enough to make it easy for people who frequently use them to know which ones to use, and those you rarely use launchers are more likely to just sell them anyway.
At the moment, Turrets have the same advantage as missiles (at least Projectile Guns). It's easy to know which ones to go for on the market. If it has 'Scout' in it's name, its meta-4. If it has 'Protoype' in its name, it's meta-3. I haven't bothered learning the meta-1 and 2 versions, as I only use 'Scout' or 'Protoype' when flying Minmatar. Unless I use T2. Which I do more often than not, really.
Are you going to give Blasters the same mis-treatment? Are they also going to be "streamlined"? Are they going to end up being called "Low-Powered Blaster", "Medium-Powered Blaster" and "High-Powered Blaster" for Ion, Electron and Neutron Blasters, respectively? Because that just sounds like shooting yourselves in the foot with a 1400mm Howitzer Artillery Cannon II. All your older players know who use Blasters know which ones to use. Those who don't use Blasters very often can ask others who do know about it, and rookies can always ask for help in their Rookie-corp or the dedicated Rookie-Help chat. In fact, isn't that why it's there? Isn't Rookie Help in place to help rookies who want to learn things? That's what I thought it was there for.
I can accept the Implant name-changes, as the current system makes it quite hard to know which Hardwirings do what. So there's one good thing coming out of this. One good thing amongst a hundred bad things is not ideal.
TL;DR: Not supporting name-changes aside from Implants.
Note: I'm not angry. I'm just disappointed that EVE needs to be simplified for new players. You might want to consider changing your focus a bit, CCP. Otherwise you just risk a second huge-scale protest.
Does anyone else remember a time when games didn't need to be simplified, in order to appeal to new players? |
Khors
El Barco Pirata
52
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 09:38:00 -
[344] - Quote
Pallidum Treponema wrote:Khors wrote:Pallidum Treponema wrote: Oh, and while you're at it, change back missile names and add damage type icons to ammo. That makes a lot more sense, and is easier for both new and old players to grasp.
Missiles are already colour coded with their tips on the icons, even this suggestion wouldn't be needed. Overall I agree with you and I think that CCP have misdirected some of their effort here. There are more ammo types than missiles. ;)
Projectile ammo is the only ones who might have some small benefit from your amunition suggestion. But I'd argue it would only clutter the icons rather than anything. There must be a better way.
Redoing projectile ammo icons with different colours and mix of those to depict the damage type is one way.
I guess this has no place in this thread however. |
R0nnie VanZant
Underworld Protection Agency Fatal Ascension
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 09:42:00 -
[345] - Quote
OMG!
I just read ccp decided to do one useless change ( like noobship design before) again... Changing names in a database very hard work ....... but lol what is it with you guys? With this things can't cover the real problems in the game! Should be better to wake up and find the real problems! Players help a lot about that... Just need to read and fix it, maybe harder then change some name in database but more effective. This can't prove for us you guys there work really just say something to cover our eyes.... pffff we are not stupid like that plz.... don't look us stupid! If don't fixing problems and do more hidden changes ( nerf ) Tiger's Spirit wrote:
Hidden nerf everywhere. Eve window refreshing rate increased everywhere. Asset items refreshing delaying up to 5 min. Double click on screen when try to navigate a ship is horrible slow. Security status check up from 15 minute to 20 minute. I would be able to list many changes which is ruins the game experience, but for the CCP the most important thing is the name changes.
It means NOT The design and names, useless things make player have good mood to play! Dont fix problems = players annoying = don't play... find another game. We don't like to play with annoying game. This is a rule. |
Kaivix
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 10:11:00 -
[346] - Quote
I had a look on Sisi (I know anything on Sisi can change but meh ) they seem to just add the prefix on front of the name or if it's one of the renames they just replace the word
thus XR-3200 Heavy Missile Bay is now the 'Experimental' XR-3200 Heavy Missile Bay
the ZW-4100 Siege Missile Bay is now the 'Experimental' ZW-4100 Torpedo Launcher
I don't see how this is dumbing down or making the game more "bland".
but in case CCP keep the above and don't do what you did with the MWD and AB.
|
Luscius Uta
Killers of Paranoid Souls
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 10:16:00 -
[347] - Quote
I suppose that those changes are made with good intent and for the better, even though I don't like having to do all my EFT/EVEHQ fits all over again, but missile launcher names are changed for the worse. Only renaming Siege Launchers to Torpedo Launchers makes sense. But if Standard Missile Launcers will be Light Missile Launchers, then Assault Missile Launchers should be Light Assault Missile Launchers. Then you leave Heavy (Assault) Missile Launchers named as they are.
And new meta 1-4 module names aren't exactly intuitive either. I'm sure you can come up with something better, like Basic/Standard/Improved/Advanced. |
Medicated Maniac
Blood Bond LLC New Eden United
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 10:17:00 -
[348] - Quote
Meta Level 0: Shield Power Relay. Meta Level 1: M1 Shield Power Relay. Meta Level 2: M2 Shield Power Relay. Example Mod Meta Level 3: M3 Shield Power Relay. Meta Level 4: M4 Shield Power Relay.
Rocket Launchers 1 - Rocket Launcher M1 - M4 Assault Missile Launcher 1 - Advanced Rocket Launcher M1 - M4 Heavy Assault Missile Launcher 1 - Heavy Rocket Launcher M1 - M4 Siege Missile Launcher 1 - Torpedo Launcher M1- M4
Standard Missile Launcher 1 - Missile Launcher M1 - M4 Heavy Missile Launcher 1 - Advanced Missile Launcher M1- M4 Cruise Missile Launcher 1 - Cruise Missile Launcher M1- M4
RL Em Damage Rocket M1 ARL EM Damage Rocket M1 HRL EM Damage Rocket M1 TL EM Damage Torp M1
ML EM Damage Missile M1 AML EM Damage Missile M1 CML EM Damage Missile M1
I like this. |
Jackson Firn
Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 10:21:00 -
[349] - Quote
I must say i am struggling to understand what you are trying to avoid or improve? With these changes, if itGÇÖs a uniform convention for naming then how will that sit with the different races, by definition does it not imply that they all sat around the table together and said right l know lets create an IEEE of eve type thing? This is the universe where the proverbial buyer beware saying should be pasted across every contract entered into. Hardly the type of universe where it makes things easier for anybody
i know overkill, but i do get a sense that unless of course evidence exists this change will make little difference to player retention which is what i guess is your golden goose? I am not likely to leave over these sorts of changes but do get the feel that this is more for dust future than for the eve furture.
|
Kingston Black
Indiscipline Incorporated
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 10:48:00 -
[350] - Quote
How on gods green earth is a limited module better than an upgraded module really???
Honestly I rarely get madbro at changes but the renaming of things like mwds is an fing shambles having to explain to newbies what all these bollocks names now mean and not having to go 'get the Y-T8' is a royal pita.
If your going to do it on meta lvl's can you at least put the number in the name so i dont have to look at this ******** naming system?
|
|
Cal Becka
Chaos Knights
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 10:48:00 -
[351] - Quote
Meta Name changing i Disagree with. I like the Idea of standerdising names so its easier to make out whats what. but anyone who's used missiles knows that 'Arbalest' is your meta 4 etc etc. why change it? (yes i know you haven't yet. but you plan too.) I've seen this comment before and i'll say it again. Have seperate meta descriptions for the diferent Module Groups. leave the Missiles as they are... (at least i know standard heavy and cruise all have the same prefix. if the others need it so be it.) have all Hybrid turrets with their own Meta Names, all Projectiles with their own, all Lazers with their own. Hardeners with their own. Propulsion with its own. etc.
hardwiring Change. Thumbs up. I like. you can see what it is. but it still keeps its 'flavour' as you put it.
The Hardener rename i don't have a problem with persay. although personaly i'd prefer them all being Photon, Ballistic, Thermal (change the Rigs Hardeners to Match) i suppose the reason you gone that way is because Explosive are already Explosive. but thats not really a reason. give Explosive a new name rather... Blastproof or something. (i'm sure your content designers are more creative than me.)
As for the Launcher Rename.... ok so heavy assaults fire assault missiles so change the name to assault. same for the Torp Launchers and Standard Missile Launchers.
But the Light Missile Array is just going to confuse folks just as much as the heavy assault and assault launchers do now. only now it'll be the Light Missile Launcher and Light Missile Array thats gonna get confused. *now admitidly i don't really see a better way of doing it at pressent, except changing the assault launchers to use there own ammo like the Heavy assaults do. and calling them somethign different. Swarm missiles or Something.
well thats my 2 cents. Take it or Leave it...(but i hope you take it.) |
Ciar Meara
Virtus Vindice
541
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 10:53:00 -
[352] - Quote
I like this. The confusing as hell implant names and "All scripts in the game have had the word "script" added to their names" are excellent changes. I can't count the times I just typed in "script" in the market and then went "oh right, that doesn't work"
I have been playing for eight years and I still don't know what all the different implants do, its just to confusing now at least there is a basic rule on how their name reflects their function and they retain their flavour.
Most excellent.
Concerning the experimental versus prototype, it sounds right, you need a "first" prototype before you do experiments with several of them so carry on, most excellent work.
I am however curious about the armour and shield naming conventions because those touch my Amarrian hart directly. - [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow] |
Tiger's Spirit
Troll Hunters INC.
48
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 11:05:00 -
[353] - Quote
Ciar Meara wrote:I have been playing for eight years and I still don't know what all the different implants do...
Most excellent.
IQ -1 |
Jenn Makanen
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
165
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 11:11:00 -
[354] - Quote
Tiger's Spirit wrote:Ciar Meara wrote:I have been playing for eight years and I still don't know what all the different implants do...
Most excellent.
IQ -1
So you took the time to memorize what each and every implant does? And you think that this is a good thing? Go see the big blue room some time. I hear it's full of a lot more interesting things that that kind of rote memorization. |
Vladimir Ilych
Gradient Electus Matari
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 11:54:00 -
[355] - Quote
In principle all sounds fine if you retain the flavour of the older names. Just one thing.
Meta Level 1: Upgraded Meta Level 2: Limited Meta Level 3: Experimental Meta Level 4: Prototype
Seems a bit odd. Why is "Limited" better than "Upgraded"? How about..
Meta Level 1: Upgraded Meta Level 2: Improved Meta Level 3: Experimental Meta Level 4: Prototype
|
Velicitia
Open Designs
705
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 12:10:00 -
[356] - Quote
Khors wrote:
Redoing projectile ammo icons with different colours and mix of those to depict the damage type is one way.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Item_Database:Ammunition_&_Charges:Projectile_Ammo:Standard_Ammo:Medium
granted, they're not necessarily clear (some of them are VERY close), but they are colourised. |
Seamus Donohue
EVE University Ivy League
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 12:11:00 -
[357] - Quote
I propose the following for the missile launchers:
Cruise Launchers go on battleships and fire Cruise Missiles, which are long-range battleship missiles. Torpedo Launchers go on battleships (and stealth bombers) and fire Torpedoes, which are short-range battleship missiles. Heavy Missile Launchers go on cruisers and fire Heavy Missiles, which are long-range cruiser missiles. Heavy Rocket Launchers go on cruisers and fire Heavy Rockets, which are short-range cruiser missiles. Deluxe Light Missile Launchers go on cruisers and fire Light Missiles, which are long-range frigate missiles. Light Missile Launchers go on frigates and fire Light Missiles, which are long-range frigate missiles. Light Rocket Launchers go on frigates and fire Light Rockets, which are short-range frigate missiles. Survivor of Teskanen. -áFan of John Rourke.
I have video tutorials for EVE Online on my YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/SeamusDonohueEVE |
Gripen
648
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 12:15:00 -
[358] - Quote
Devblog wrote:There simply is not much inherent game value in having to do a Show Info every time you can't remember whether the Voltaic Nanite hardener is better than the Radioisotope one, or whether the Hardwiring - Inherent Implants 'Lancer' G1.5-Alpha goes into slot 6 or slot 7, and what kind of bonus it gives again, and how much of that bonus you get. Easy solution: replace personal item names with generic ones. Proper solution: display a quick tooltip for items with meta-level and slot information. You already have that on item icons in inventory. |
Bent Barrel
31
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 12:20:00 -
[359] - Quote
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO PLEASE !!!!!
I see that my return to EVE was very short. I thought Failcarna was the lowest you can go, but this is worse.
You are changing the game into one large spreadsheet with this. Yes it was a spreadsheet before, but the cells had color. How they all just have black font on white background. That's what you are doing with the renamings.
I see I will not renew my subscription after this hits TQ. |
TorTorden
NorCorp Enterprise No Holes Barred
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 12:33:00 -
[360] - Quote
Gripen wrote:Devblog wrote:There simply is not much inherent game value in having to do a Show Info every time you can't remember whether the Voltaic Nanite hardener is better than the Radioisotope one, or whether the Hardwiring - Inherent Implants 'Lancer' G1.5-Alpha goes into slot 6 or slot 7, and what kind of bonus it gives again, and how much of that bonus you get. Easy solution: replace personal item names with generic ones. Proper solution: display a quick tooltip for items with meta-level and slot information. You already have that on item icons in inventory.
Quoted for THRUTH! |
|
Daedra Blue
Atomic Biohazard
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 12:42:00 -
[361] - Quote
Implants Names changes are a great improvement.
Module Names suck due to the fact that not all items have all 1-4 metal levels in the game that is one thing.
The others is you are replacing unintuitive prefixes with a generalized unintuitive prefix. In my opinion you are complicating things or merely half way solving the problem, generalization is good but why not just put MT1-MT4 in front or back of the already existing names this will keep the established names that have been around for years buy also add the Meta Level tag for quick reference.
Best place would be at the end of the name!
Why is this better?
- Names remain unchanged and this leaves you again with the freedom to come up with god knows what names. - Meta level is there for quick reference. - Old players are happy that they can keep the old habits while they get the improved meta tag. - Both search by meta tag and normal old names remain simultaneously - Old Killboards can e easily fixed/ Killmails can be fixed by simple queries.
- Resists should also keep they're name and could get a resist prefix besides the end Meta tag. - This keeps old flavour but also adds the resist type: EM/KN/TH/EX/AD - Electro Magnetic/Kinetic/Thermal/Explosive/Adaptive - This would create the generalization without removing the old established names.
All around focus on ADDING Value instead of Replacing VALUE.
What you did with the propulsion modules was quite bad now its harder then before to sort them.
Contrary to what you believe the prefixes you chose are too long and unintuitive. The shorter and the more direct the better.
Besides short suffixes also clears DB storage space in the long run and makes communication less hard on bandwidths, is a WIN-WIN-WIN situation ;) |
Bent Barrel
31
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 12:46:00 -
[362] - Quote
Daedra Blue wrote:Implants Names changes are a great improvement.
Module Names suck due to the fact that not all items have all 1-4 metal levels in the game that is one thing.
The others is you are replacing unintuitive prefixes with a generalized unintuitive prefix. In my opinion you are complicating things or merely half way solving the problem, generalization is good but why not just put MT1-MT4 in front or back of the already existing names this will keep the established names that have been around for years buy also add the Meta Level tag for quick reference.
Best place would be at the end of the name!
Why is this better?
- Names remain unchanged and this leaves you again with the freedom to come up with god knows what names. - Meta level is there for quick reference. - Old players are happy that they can keep the old habits while they get the improved meta tag. - Both search by meta tag and normal old names remain simultaneously - Old Killboards can e easily fixed/ Killmails can be fixed by simple queries.
- Resists should also keep they're name and could get a resist prefix besides the end Meta tag. - This keeps old flavour but also adds the resist type: EM/KN/TH/EX/AD - Electro Magnetic/Kinetic/Thermal/Explosive/Adaptive - This would create the generalization without removing the old established names.
All around focus on ADDING Value instead of Replacing VALUE.
What you did with the propulsion modules was quite bad now its harder then before to sort them.
Contrary to what you believe the prefixes you chose are too long and unintuitive. The shorter and the more direct the better.
Besides short suffixes also clears DB storage space in the long run and makes communication less hard on bandwidths, is a WIN-WIN-WIN situation ;)
How about adding the meta level to the item icon ? Like we have the T2 designation (yellow corner), we can have another corner with the meta number .... problem solved, no need for renaming .... |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
575
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 12:47:00 -
[363] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:Trinkets friend wrote:Noes, eventually RRT's will become 1600mm Prototype armour plates. :(
To be honest, the areas where these improvements will be most advantageous will be the armour hardeners and reflective plating; I can never remember whether the voltaic is better than the nanite. A middle ground might be: Meta 0 - plain old name Meta 1 - plain old name + upgraded Meta 2 - plain old name + improved Meta 3 - the existing fancy names Meta 4 - the existing fancy and unique and memorable names Meta 0: Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane I Meta 1: Upgraded Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane I Meta 2: Improved Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane I Meta 3: Radioisotope Adaptive Nano Membrane I Meta 4: N-Type Adaptive Nano Membrane I For the younger players, this means that if they see "Upgraded" or "Improved" (or some other standard attribute) that they can just remember "oh, that's meta 1 or 2, slightly better then the base unit". The more flavorful names stick around for the version that matter (which are the Meta 3/4).
I like this. I like it a lot.
It's a good compromise between the cool stuff and the perceived need to fix a few bent nails with a sledgehammer.
This is my signature.-á There are many others like it, but this one is mine. |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
1954
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 13:05:00 -
[364] - Quote
Bent Barrel wrote:Daedra Blue wrote:snipped How about adding the meta level to the item icon ? Like we have the T2 designation (yellow corner), we can have another corner with the meta number .... problem solved, no need for renaming ....
Don't treat renaming like it's some kind of monster you have to avoid at all cost. It's just a tool to improve and fix the faults and limitations of the current naming scheme. You're going to have to do some renaming anyway, since some of the old names aren't that well chosen and can cause problems.
As an example take my personal pet peeve, the shield hardener names. I've played the game for years, but if I fly an armor ship for a few times I can't search the hardeners by name anymore. It shouldn't be that hard to remember them. They are all shield hardeners, but you can't search them by those words. The whole group is a mix on barriers, fields, screens and matrixes, that you can't all get to show in any simple way. It's not a bad thing to give all of them some uniform designation, that allows you to easily remember them and get them all to show by a simple search word. If you're doing that anyway, you might as well be open minded and see what other improvements you could do. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
575
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 13:16:00 -
[365] - Quote
Kaivix wrote:I had a look on Sisi (I know anything on Sisi can change but meh ) they seem to just add the prefix on front of the name or if it's one of the renames they just replace the word
thus XR-3200 Heavy Missile Bay is now the 'Experimental' XR-3200 Heavy Missile Bay
the ZW-4100 Siege Missile Bay is now the 'Experimental' ZW-4100 Torpedo Launcher
I don't see how this is dumbing down or making the game more "bland".
but in case CCP keep the above and don't do what you did with the MWD and AB.
This would work too. Keep the flavor text and add the unified description of the meta level. Maybe someone learned from the loss of the much loved YT-8?
Some time ago, someone, somewhere put a lot of effort into all those names and they do add a nice flavor to the game and there is a rhyme and/or reason to most of it. Sure "Anode" might mean meta 3 for some guns and meta 4 for others, and maybe *that* is something that could use fixing. But please don't yank all the nice names in favor of "Experimental Thingy" like you did with ABs and MWDs.
This is my signature.-á There are many others like it, but this one is mine. |
pa3ot
Bad Balance Villore Accords
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 13:24:00 -
[366] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:Trinkets friend wrote:Noes, eventually RRT's will become 1600mm Prototype armour plates. :(
To be honest, the areas where these improvements will be most advantageous will be the armour hardeners and reflective plating; I can never remember whether the voltaic is better than the nanite. A middle ground might be: Meta 0 - plain old name Meta 1 - plain old name + upgraded Meta 2 - plain old name + improved Meta 3 - the existing fancy names Meta 4 - the existing fancy and unique and memorable names Meta 0: Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane I Meta 1: Upgraded Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane I Meta 2: Improved Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane I Meta 3: Radioisotope Adaptive Nano Membrane I Meta 4: N-Type Adaptive Nano Membrane I For the younger players, this means that if they see "Upgraded" or "Improved" (or some other standard attribute) that they can just remember "oh, that's meta 1 or 2, slightly better then the base unit". The more flavorful names stick around for the version that matter (which are the Meta 3/4).
It's not so good, cause in this case we'll lost the modules like "Catalyzed Cold-gas Arcjet Thrusters" (as i remember it was meta 2) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
346
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 13:30:00 -
[367] - Quote
Niraia wrote:Standard Forum Post
Non standard melons! Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Daedra Blue
Atomic Biohazard
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 13:41:00 -
[368] - Quote
Bent Barrel wrote:
How about adding the meta level to the item icon ? Like we have the T2 designation (yellow corner), we can have another corner with the meta number .... problem solved, no need for renaming ....
Because you can not search for numbers in pictures....
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
346
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 13:43:00 -
[369] - Quote
Erim Solfara wrote:Devore Sekk wrote:Dumgard wrote:Erim Solfara wrote:I just typed a sodding ESSAY, and the forum swallowed it. I'm disgruntled. That's CCP's new "Intelligence Filter", for situations like these. In order to stop people from making long forum posts which may show how poorly thought out the developer's changes are, CCP's forum now eliminates said posts with a vengeance. I've learned to ctrl-a crtl-c a decade ago before trusting any significant chunk of text to the intertubes. I usually do, didn't this time =/
1) Have Firefox 2) Install Lazarus plug in (saves anything as you type it and will restore it at a mouse click). 3) ... 4) Profit! Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Daedra Blue
Atomic Biohazard
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 13:50:00 -
[370] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Erim Solfara wrote:Devore Sekk wrote:Dumgard wrote:Erim Solfara wrote:I just typed a sodding ESSAY, and the forum swallowed it. I'm disgruntled. That's CCP's new "Intelligence Filter", for situations like these. In order to stop people from making long forum posts which may show how poorly thought out the developer's changes are, CCP's forum now eliminates said posts with a vengeance. I've learned to ctrl-a crtl-c a decade ago before trusting any significant chunk of text to the intertubes. I usually do, didn't this time =/ 1) Have Firefox 2) Install Lazarus plug in (saves anything as you type it and will restore it at a mouse click). 3) ... 4) Profit!
Had to post mine twice too, Ctrl+a -> Ctrl+c, never trust the intertubes to always get it right. |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
346
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 13:53:00 -
[371] - Quote
I have this genius "I took 3 seconds" idea to actually help newbies for real.
1) Newbie wants his new afterburner
2) He opens market window where there's one innovative element: "show only usable" (like almost every 2003+ other MMO does).
3) He clicks said checkbox.
4) Searching for "afterburner" or expanding the corresponding category in the tree view will only show what he can use. Optionally, add an ORDER BY META_LEVEL clause in the returned items.
Done. No pixels will be harmed in the process. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
257
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 13:57:00 -
[372] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I have this genius "I took 3 seconds" idea to actually help newbies for real.
1) Newbie wants his new afterburner
2) He opens market window where there's one innovative element: "show only usable" (like almost every 2003+ other MMO does).
3) He clicks said checkbox.
4) Searching for "afterburner" or expanding the corresponding category in the tree view will only show what he can use. Optionally, add an ORDER BY META_LEVEL clause in the returned items.
Done. No pixels will be harmed in the process.
While it's not on the same screen, it is in the settings for the market. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Azrin Stella Oerndotte
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 13:58:00 -
[373] - Quote
If you have to simplify meta levels, just add the new naming as a prefix, for example:
Upgraded 'Malkuth' Cruise Launcher I Limited 'Limos' Cruise Launcher I Experimental XT-9000 Launcher I Prototype 'Arbalest' Cruise Launcher I
Of course, some weapons already have "Prototype" in their names,:
1400mm Prototype Siege Cannon 425mm Prototype Gauss Cannon
Just keep that format.
Or is this what you are already planning?
Edit: Just saw that this had already been suggested |
Debir Achen
EVE University Ivy League
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 14:12:00 -
[374] - Quote
Darth Felin wrote:Interesting change
but Light Missile Launcher and Light Missile Array are still confusing maybe it is better to rename them to Light Missile Launcher and Rapid Light Missile Launcher? Or Barrage Light Missile Launcher? Doesn't quite work for me, but I'm tossing it out there in the hope someone can refine it.
(And I'm hoping that some-day soon we'll get an equivalent for Battleships that fires heavy missiles) |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 14:16:00 -
[375] - Quote
I too would like to see [new prefix] [old name] for meta levels. Seeing meta levels at a glance makes my life easier at times, but the fancy meta names are fun and retaining them will a) keep a lot of out of game resources still reasonably current and b) save a lot of bittervets the confusion and forumrage recently caused by the missile/prop mod rename. I have always been sad in my heart of hearts that T2 modules have such plain names compared to meta mods.
Also, if you are re-examining missile names, registering desire for just putting the damage type into the old name instead of using a blanket name for damage type across all missile types. Flavor and function! |
Xyrcaryn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 14:18:00 -
[376] - Quote
Oh great, now I have to learn all module names again |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
290
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 14:22:00 -
[377] - Quote
Quote:Meta Level 1: Upgraded
Meta Level 2: Limited
Meta Level 3: Experimental
Meta Level 4: Prototype
Reporting cultural issue:
To my non-English speaking ear, "Limited" sounds completely inferior to "Upgraded".
Why do a I want a "limited" effect rather than the "whole" one? And since when something that is not even full or complete is better than something "upgraded"?
I personally do know enough English to know that "limited" also means "non-standard", but I assure you that this is not what will think a non-english speaking player reading that some implant is "limited" vs an "upgraded" one.
It would be way clearer this way:
Meta Level 1: Standard
Meta Level 2: Improved
Meta Level 3: Experimental
Meta Level 4: Prototype
And it would make all sense in the world this way:
Meta Level 1: Standard
Meta Level 2: Improved
Meta Level 3: Elite
Meta Level 4: Experimental
But hey! Don't take my word for it! Just ask your players who don't speak English as a first or second language! EVE residents: 5% Wormholes; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 6: 100% Nullsec residents.
EVE demographics vs CSM demographics, nothing to worry about...-á |
Alec Freeman
The Dark Space Initiative Revival Of The Talocan Empire
71
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 14:28:00 -
[378] - Quote
What the **** is this ****!?!?
Seriously. Stop changing things that sent broken. The meta names are only confusing for like the first week of playing and the add depth too the game. You are also screwing over your existing fanbase by forcing them too learn entirely new terms. I truly hope someone at ccp comes too their senses and puts a stop too this. |
Bent Barrel
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 14:42:00 -
[379] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:Bent Barrel wrote:Daedra Blue wrote:snipped How about adding the meta level to the item icon ? Like we have the T2 designation (yellow corner), we can have another corner with the meta number .... problem solved, no need for renaming .... Don't treat renaming like it's some kind of monster you have to avoid at all cost. It's just a tool to improve and fix the faults and limitations of the current naming scheme. You're going to have to do some renaming anyway, since some of the old names aren't that well chosen and can cause problems. As an example take my personal pet peeve, the shield hardener names. I've played the game for years, but if I fly an armor ship for a few times I can't search the hardeners by name anymore. It shouldn't be that hard to remember them. They are all shield hardeners, but you can't search them by those words. The whole group is a mix on barriers, fields, screens and matrixes, that you can't all get to show in any simple way. It's not a bad thing to give all of them some uniform designation, that allows you to easily remember them and get them all to show by a simple search word. If you're doing that anyway, you might as well be open minded and see what other improvements you could do.
How about we change the ship names ?
Gallente cruiser Upgraded Gallente cruiser Limited Gallente cruiser Experimental Gallente cruiser
Or how about ammo ?
Small hybrid charge Upgraded small hybrid charge Limited small hybrid charge Experimental small hybrid charge Prototype small hybrid charge
Still looks good ? After all there's nothing in the ammo name that has any correlation to it's attributes.
Hey how about "Small kinetic/thermal/explosive projectile charge" ?
|
Jenn Makanen
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
165
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 14:44:00 -
[380] - Quote
Alec Freeman wrote:The meta names are only confusing for like the first week of playing and the add depth too the game.
You are also screwing over your existing fanbase by forcing them too learn entirely new terms
Well, given that the changes are to a consistent scheme, it should be far less than one week for the existing not to be confused.
Personally, I don't understand the sheer volume of the whining on this. Do people really think about their afterburners other than 'I'll go for the best' and 'I'll turn it on'?
I could /almost/ understand things like missiles. Almost.
|
|
Bent Barrel
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 14:47:00 -
[381] - Quote
Daedra Blue wrote:Bent Barrel wrote:
How about adding the meta level to the item icon ? Like we have the T2 designation (yellow corner), we can have another corner with the meta number .... problem solved, no need for renaming ....
Because you can not search for numbers in pictures....
Because you cannot search for meta level anyway.
IF YOU ARE ALREADY SEARCHING THE MARKET/ASSETS THEN YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR !!!!
Any newb will look through the market tree/groups and check the skill reqs/prices/show info !!!
It's the veterans getting the short stick here .... |
Bent Barrel
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 14:49:00 -
[382] - Quote
Jenn Makanen wrote:Alec Freeman wrote:The meta names are only confusing for like the first week of playing and the add depth too the game.
You are also screwing over your existing fanbase by forcing them too learn entirely new terms
Well, given that the changes are to a consistent scheme, it should be far less than one week for the existing not to be confused. Personally, I don't understand the sheer volume of the whining on this. Do people really think about their afterburners other than 'I'll go for the best' and 'I'll turn it on'? I could /almost/ understand things like missiles. Almost.
then why not rename the whole meta range but just the sub t2 ? after all the gistii/gistum/gist naming is sooooooooo confusing ..... |
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
72
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 15:02:00 -
[383] - Quote
Szilardis wrote:Pallidum Treponema wrote: This is awesome!
Yep, apart from not being able to tell the T2 stuff quick enough.
But if the Meta was in the top right or bottom left corner, it would keep the T2 and faction stuff clearly identifiable.
Having played 7 years now I am rather annoyed you'd go changing names on us. Knowledge is one key benefit to playing for a long time and you appear to want to sabotage my knowledge of in game items for no good reason.
People learn the names and although there are a few misleading names dotted around, on the whole most are fine. So I really dont see why you'd mess with EVERYONE's knowledge, the legacy of items on killboards too for example, just because some new clod can't be bothered to take the time to learn what I took time to do.
|
Vegare
Das zweite Konglomerat The Initiative.
23
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 15:11:00 -
[384] - Quote
Confirming the new launcher naming convention, is no convention. |
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
55
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 15:27:00 -
[385] - Quote
Yet another way to represent these things would be to incorporate meaningful numbers into the named modules in a similar way to the new implants. Merge them into the name of the module in a way that keeps a scifi feel - by this I mean using a naming convention that respects the race/faction that are the primary developers of a module.
For instance: missile launchers are generally patented and developed by the Caldari, so their names would integrate tech and meta levels into serial codes. The old examples of this were modules like the "XT-2800 Heavy Assault Missile Launcher" and "Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction". However, XT-2800 has the potential to become an indicator for the developer and quality (meta level) of the item.
In this case, XT would be a 2 letter symbol for the faction who patented the specific module - examples: XT -> No faction (tech 1/2) CN -> Caldari Navy DG -> Dread Guristas
Adding a code letter before the tech and meta level representation could signify calibre: R -> Rocket Launcher L -> Light Launcher A -> Assault Launcher H -> Heavy Launcher C -> Cruise Launcher T -> Torpedo Launcher CT -> Citadel Torpedo Launcher CC -> Citadel Cruise Launcher
Finally, 2800 could be truncated down to a 3 digit number which directly displays the Tech and meta level of the item, making visual comparison a lot easier (comparing numbers is easier than names, and more efficient- like the Caldari): Meta 1 -> 101 Meta 2 -> 102 Meta 15-> 115 Tech 2 -> 205
For example: A "Caldari Navy Cruise Missile Launcher" would translate into "CN-C108 Caldari Navy Cruise Missile Launcher". At a glance, you can tell it is a Caldari Navy (CN) Tech 1 meta 8 Cruise Missile Launcher. Another example: The "Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II" would become the "XT-A205 Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II" Here, you quickly learn it is a non faction Tech 2 HAM launcher.
This is only an example for missile launchers. Every module type should have its origin analysed and named based on what race patented it and what makes sense. Keep in mind that if you're going to use descriptive words as meta representations there needs to be a big enough difference between the weight of the words to make an impact on the user. E.g "Prototype" and "Experimental" are two words with roughly the same weight when we compare them.
TL;DR: Variety is the spice in this case, and I feel the way to tie this into more descriptive module names without loosing too much diversity is to use the already established races. I think it is a bad idea to homogenise ALL of the modules into one format for naming - rather, have the player figure out how a certain races name their modules.
Just my 0.02 ISK. |
Bent Barrel
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 15:31:00 -
[386] - Quote
JamesCLK wrote:Yet another way to represent these things would be to incorporate meaningful numbers into the named modules in a similar way to the new implants. Merge them into the name of the module in a way that keeps a scifi feel - by this I mean using a naming convention that respects the race/faction that are the primary developers of a module.
For instance: missile launchers are generally patented and developed by the Caldari, so their names would integrate tech and meta levels into serial codes. The old examples of this were modules like the "XT-2800 Heavy Assault Missile Launcher" and "Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction". However, XT-2800 has the potential to become an indicator for the developer and quality (meta level) of the item.
In this case, XT would be a 2 letter symbol for the faction who patented the specific module - examples: XT -> No faction (tech 1/2) CN -> Caldari Navy DG -> Dread Guristas
Adding a code letter before the tech and meta level representation could signify calibre: R -> Rocket Launcher L -> Light Launcher A -> Assault Launcher H -> Heavy Launcher C -> Cruise Launcher T -> Torpedo Launcher CT -> Citadel Torpedo Launcher CC -> Citadel Cruise Launcher
Finally, 2800 could be truncated down to a 3 digit number which directly displays the Tech and meta level of the item, making visual comparison a lot easier (comparing numbers is easier than names, and more efficient- like the Caldari): Meta 1 -> 101 Meta 2 -> 102 Meta 15-> 115 Tech 2 -> 205
For example: A "Caldari Navy Cruise Missile Launcher" would translate into "CN-C108 Caldari Navy Cruise Missile Launcher". At a glance, you can tell it is a Caldari Navy (CN) Tech 1 meta 8 Cruise Missile Launcher. Another example: The "Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II" would become the "XT-A205 Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II" Here, you quickly learn it is a non faction Tech 2 HAM launcher.
This is only an example for missile launchers. Every module type should have its origin analysed and named based on what race patented it and what makes sense. Keep in mind that if you're going to use descriptive words as meta representations there needs to be a big enough difference between the weight of the words to make an impact on the user. E.g "Prototype" and "Experimental" are two words with roughly the same weight when we compare them.
TL;DR: Variety is the spice in this case, and I feel the way to tie this into more descriptive module names without loosing too much diversity is to use the already established races. I think it is a bad idea to homogenise ALL of the modules into one format for naming - rather, have the player figure out how a certain races name their modules.
Just my 0.02 ISK.
now THIS I could live with !!! |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
258
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 15:58:00 -
[387] - Quote
JamesCLK wrote:For instance: missile launchers are generally patented and developed by the Caldari, so their names would integrate tech and meta levels into serial codes. The old examples of this were modules like the "XT-2800 Heavy Assault Missile Launcher" and "Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction".
I'm sure the factions at war with each other will respect each other's patents
On a more serious note, I like the rest of the suggestion.
Consistant, keeps flavor, not too hard to pick up. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Desert Ice78
Gryphon River Industries Bloodbound.
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 16:02:00 -
[388] - Quote
Leave the launchers naming alone. It works fine already. I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused. |
otto leading
The Lagrangian Mechanics Intrepid Crossing
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 16:28:00 -
[389] - Quote
First, let me start with a positive comment. The numbering (slot/percentage) at the end of the implant names is an excellent idea and provides some inspiration for my other suggestions.
Second, names are always less intuitive and provide a less internally consistent and logical system that some form of numerical indexing. (Just ask anyone who lives in a city with names streets, exspecially in themed subdivisions) vs people who live in cities based on a grid of numerical streets and avenues beginning at an origin downtown somewhere.
However, names give some flavor, some historical context and some interest to what would be an otherwise very sterile, pragmatic system.
Third, by changing from one relatively non-intuitive system to another relatively non-intuitive system you are creating a lot fo work and learning for the existing player-base and throwing away a huge pile of history. This is ostensibly being done to accommodate new players. (We have a bank commercial in Canada with the tagline "even kids know it is not right to treat your new friends better than your old friends") And, new players have to learn whatever it is anew anyway. Really all a wholescale renaming convention is going to do is **** off the current player base which, as students of recent history know, is unwise.
Fourth, (more constructive suggestions), at the end of the existing module names tack on an "M1", "M2", etc. Then there is really no mystery. Like wise Ex, Th, Em, Ki, etc can be used to indicate damage or resisteance type.
Fifth, i'm sure that for almost all proposed name changes a short little cluster of letters and numbers can reveal the necessary information and leave the current names and their culture and history intact, aside from the odd anomolous naming that could use some cleanup such as when ammo naming doesn't match module naming. (i'm surprised no one has mentioned the mismatch between pos gun sizes and the ammo they use.)
In any event, I hope my comments have been balanced, ease of use is a laudable goal, one that needs to be balanced and implemented thoughtfully and carefully.
Cheers, otto |
Garr Earthbender
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
40
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 16:33:00 -
[390] - Quote
I see the 'Light Missile Array' being that cool new missile swarm mentioned in the last CSM minutes.
Just food for thought. -Rock is overpowered, Scissors is fine. |
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
258
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 16:40:00 -
[391] - Quote
Garr Earthbender wrote:I see the 'Light Missile Array' being that cool new missile swarm mentioned in the last CSM minutes.
Just food for thought.
New meta game tactic! Melt your opponent;s graphics cards with millions of missiles needing rendered FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Plaude Pollard
Aliastra Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:15:00 -
[392] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Quote:Meta Level 1: Upgraded
Meta Level 2: Limited
Meta Level 3: Experimental
Meta Level 4: Prototype Reporting cultural issue: To my non-English speaking ear, "Limited" sounds completely inferior to "Upgraded". Why do a I want a "limited" effect rather than the "whole" one? And since when something that is not even full or complete is better than something "upgraded"? I personally do know enough English to know that "limited" also means "non-standard", but I assure you that this is not what will think a non-english speaking player reading that some implant is "limited" vs an "upgraded" one. It would be way clearer this way: Meta Level 1: Standard
Meta Level 2: Improved
Meta Level 3: Experimental
Meta Level 4: Prototype And it would make all sense in the world this way: Meta Level 1: Standard
Meta Level 2: Improved
Meta Level 3: Elite
Meta Level 4: ExperimentalWhy? Because prototypes are clumsy and prone to break down = inferior stuff. It took long unitl I read the stats of "protoype" weapons to learn that they are actually better than the Meta 1. But hey! Don't take my word for it! Just ask your players who don't speak English as a first or second language! Then I honestly think "Advanced" would be better for Meta Level 3, rather than "Elite". The way I see it, "Elite" either implies the item itself is very skilled at what it does, rather than just improving the ship's stats, or it implies only elite pilots should use it. I could be wrong though. Advanced just sounds a bit more... sci-fi-ish...
And maybe Meta Level 1 shouldn't be called "Standard", as that would imply it's no different from its raw T1 version.
Instead, if we have to change names at all, how about:
Meta-1: Upgraded
Meta-2: Improved
Meta-3: Advanced
Meta-4: Experimental
How about those names instead, if we have to change anything? |
MisterNick
The Sagan Clan Pax Romana Alliance
40
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:54:00 -
[393] - Quote
Liking the hardwiring implant name changes, makes a lot of sense. Not so sure on the module naming changes, I still have trouble remembering exactly which mwd is the one I want now that catalysed cold-gas is gone, but i'll get used to it in time "Fools! I'll show them all!"
What do you mean that one's already taken? |
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
770
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:08:00 -
[394] - Quote
How did the meeting go today CCP? did you reach any conclusions. We need the info? |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3348
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:57:00 -
[395] - Quote
I am wondering that myself I have seen other good suggestions to make a good sized tarball execute this name changes for awsome enough.
|
Sturmwolke
138
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:59:00 -
[396] - Quote
There's barely any details in the blog to comment on anything much. Don't expect quality feedback when you're holding back.
1 - Generalized Meta 1-4 naming schema To be completely honest, I don't like it. It kills the flavor (which is EVE) since almost every items will have Upgraded/Limited/Experimental/Prototype tacked onto it's name. Upgraded Shield Booster, Upgraded 10MN Afterburner, Upgraded Warp Scrambler? See the blandness in that sentence. People more often will register the first one or two suffixes for an item, for identification. By running those 4 classification cross the board, you will manage to single handedly degrade EVE's exotic variety and uniqueness into simpleton handles. It does not evoke any sort of emotional recognition from a player.
Have you ever wondered that all those inconsistencies are part of the charm that makes EVE unique (despite the annoyance)? Overstandardization will kill the flavor. Imo, this schema is a major mistake that will have intangible repercussions in the future for EVE.
Meta1-4 identification isn't hard. It's like learning your tables. It's part of the experience. Overall, it's not broken but there are a few inconsistencies. Fix those inconsistencies instead and scrap this schema.
2 - Skill Hardwiring Now this is the correct target for such an initiative. The old schema was debilitating.
3 - Armor/Shield stuff Several minor confusions which neeed to be fixed, but overall they're fine.
4 - Missiles Launchers There are two issues with the new schema, a) the unique cruiser class Light Missile Array (old name Assault Missile Launcher) utilizing a suffix for identification and b) the (confusing) pre-fix naming order between the frigate vs cruiser launchers e.g. Light Missile Launchers vs Assault/Heavy Missile Launchers. Messing with the old names didn't solve any problem, you've managed to propagate the same confusion & inconsistencies in the new schema - what's the point?
Use this instead :
Rocket Launcher Missile Launcher Missile Array
Heavy Rocket Launcher (this should've been its correct name all along since the old HAM is unguided) Heavy Missile Launcher
Torpedo Launcher Cruise Launcher
Capital Torpedo Launcher Capital Cruise Launcher
|
Cindy Marco
Expanse Security
43
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:07:00 -
[397] - Quote
If showing meta is such a huge deal to you guys, why didn't you just put a meta tag in place of the T2/faction tag for T1? Then when you look through the market list it will be perfectly clear.
It would be quicker, simpler, and you wouldn't be upsetting anyone. You would not be creating a ton of work for people who build tools to support the community.
It sucks loosing all the meta names, its really going to take alot of flavor out of the game. Why don't we just renames guns from hybrids, projectiles, etc as Large gun type A? Railguns, blasters, artillery? That is confusing stuff! Get rid of interceptors, we can just call them fast frigates.
I really hate to see the naming scheme for the target painters go. Its good for a laugh the first time you notice it.
Now that "you're listening" to use why are we seeing changes that no one asked for, and many people are against? |
MuppetsSlayed
Angelus.Mortis GIANTSBANE.
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:08:00 -
[398] - Quote
CCP Guard wrote:CCP Gnauton and friends have been working on the naming structure for modules and implants in EVE. They've taken in your feedback, made some changes to the strategy accordingly, and now they want to talk to you about the future of module names in EVE. Please go here to read about what they've been up to, and if you don't have some feedback for us...my name ain't Guard!
This bit is my favourite:
Quote: This is perhaps the most extensive and potentially controversial change we've made in this iteration, because it goes beyond individual modules and all the way into module (and market) groups.
Please make sure you disseminate this information among your corporation and alliance mates as widely as possible.
We have changed the missile launcher names as follows:
Heavy Assault Missile Launchers have become Assault Missile Launchers
Assault Missile Launchers have become Light Missile Arrays
Standard Missile Launchers have become Light Missile Launchers
Siege Launchers have become Torpedo Launchers
Way to fcking confuse everyone.
You have some good ideas in what your trying to do. I went on sisi to have a play and found it totally impossible to fit out a ship.
I must say that this missile part is bloody stupid. If you talk to anyone who has never played eve before and show them what you have done I can understand how they would tel you that what you have done is better. But a lot of us have been using the old names for almost nine years now, how do you think we are going to feel when we all log in for the first time after this change?????
|
Kingston Black
Indiscipline Incorporated
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:14:00 -
[399] - Quote
Plaude Pollard wrote:
And maybe Meta Level 1 shouldn't be called "Standard", as that would imply it's no different from its raw T1 version.
Instead, if we have to change names at all, how about:
Meta-1: Upgraded
Meta-2: Improved
Meta-3: Advanced
Meta-4: Experimental
How about those names instead, if we have to change anything?
That suggestion i can live with makes perfect sense to me +100 internets good sir |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke
53
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:22:00 -
[400] - Quote
Also, after 5 years of eve, I can no longer count the amount of happy rookies I encountered that figured out the easter egg in meta target painter names for the first time.
This isn't all excess garbage. This is also game depth that gets tossed out of the window. |
|
Zowie Powers
Hole in the wall
51
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:24:00 -
[401] - Quote
HEAVY ROCKETS. |
Captain Praxis
EVE University Ivy League
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:25:00 -
[402] - Quote
Implant changes - great +1
As for the rest ... Do Not Want |
|
CCP Gnauton
C C P C C P Alliance
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:45:00 -
[403] - Quote
Hi guys,
First off, thank you all very much for the feedback. Even when not quite constructive, it has been consistently funny (the "Caldari Cruiser 3" post gave me a chuckle) and to-the-point (a swift kick in the genitals is always a potent mental image), and it's a great thing to see the level of passion you guys have for the game.
That being said, it's apparent from the tone and tenor of your dissent that we have quite a few things to reconsider here. After monitoring this thread closely since yesterday and convening this afternoon, we've decided on a few things.
The Hardwiring name changes will go in as planned, as will the armor/shield resistance module names.
Launchers: In light of your feedback, we have decided to hold back the launcher changes temporarily. The Light Missile Array has been renamed to Rapid Light Missile Launcher for conformity to the launcher scheme and to ease market searches, but aside from that we've not changed anything else for the time being. The new launcher names will remain on SiSi for the next week, and during that week we will monitor this thread closely for suggestions regarding the launcher scheme. Pending your feedback, we will decide on a course of action that hopefully takes into account as many of people's wishes as possible while remaining clear and sensible.
Meta Scheme: We've discussed this a great deal and watched the conversation closely, and on reflection it's probably a good idea for us to, as someone suggested, go back to the drawing board for a brief resketch. The original idea behind the four names had to do with meta mods' fictional underpinnings as equipment that's been modified by criminal organizations, which is why things like "Experimental" and "Prototype" seemed to me (and still do) to make perfect sense within their context of increasing rarity (though I will concede that perhaps those two are a little too similar). "Limited" may have been a bad choice, since it appears to be widely interpreted in its negative meaning rather than the "Limited Edition" connotation I was going for.
While there've been dozens of good (and a few very good) suggestions for alternative schemes, the proof is nevertheless in the pudding. Look at how many different schemes you guys came up with. Look at how different they are. Look at the disagreements amongst yourselves on which of them is the most intuitive. Everybody has different associations with all of these words,so in the end the fact remains that any word scheme will to some extent be arbitrary and prone to disagreement and confusion. This is not said in defense of my own scheme, because as you've continually (and rightfully) pointed out to me, it certainly has its flaws. Regardless, for this reason we're going to take a good hard look at the idea iself: is the meta scheme really serving the player, and is the cost to flavor too great? No promises yet, but at this relatively early stage, every option is still open (including tooltips or other UI solutions that might serve the same function better).
Missiles: We still do firmly believe in the usability of a single name across all missiles of a given damage type, but the "Trauma" designator seems to have violently struck a nerve with several of you guys. Since this is early days for this project, anything is possible. If anybody can come up with a sufficiently convincing and objective reason for why this name is the infernal love-child of bad taste and cluelessness, then I will seriously consider changing it. (I'm thinking something like "Anguish" might be good, whaddaya think? Just kidding, I like being alive.)
Target Painters: These names will not be changed under any circumstances, ever. Those were the first modules I ever named, and I snuck them under the radar without letting anyone know, to my then-producer's chagrin (he came to appreciate it later, though). I thought it would take a while for people to spot it, but of course it only took a couple of days before there was a forum thread. Can't slip much past you guys. Anyway, because of the status they've achieved, there was never any thought of renaming these at any point during this project's conception. Sorry for keeping you in suspense. Should have told you right away.
Ships: I know most of you were being tongue-in-cheek, but it bears mentioning just for posterity that no ship names will ever be changed. Was never on the cards and never will be.
That's all for now. Once again, I want to say thanks for the wealth of feedback you've provided, and pardon me for taking a while to respond (this is a large thread and it grew quite rapidly). We've noted down the main currents we've seen here, and will continue to modify the plan accordingly. In addition, for future iterations we will come up with some form of user testing well in advance of any actual development server changes, just to make sure we don't step in it like this again.
In any case, please do continue the conversation. I'll chime in where appropriate and update this thread as we reach concrete conclusions about our readjustment of direction, but mostly I'll be listening for your thoughts.
All the best, G
|
|
|
CCP Gnauton
C C P C C P Alliance
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:49:00 -
[404] - Quote
Nirnaeth Ornoediad wrote:In general this is very good, but it would be very helpful if CCP released a tool to help kill-board and other API users. Even a global find/replace SQL script with paramterized table names would help.
This is an excellent idea. We will definitely look into something like this for future iterations. Thank you very much! |
|
|
CCP Gnauton
C C P C C P Alliance
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:52:00 -
[405] - Quote
JamesCLK wrote: Adding a code letter before the tech and meta level representation could signify calibre: R -> Rocket Launcher L -> Light Launcher A -> Assault Launcher H -> Heavy Launcher C -> Cruise Launcher T -> Torpedo Launcher CT -> Citadel Torpedo Launcher CC -> Citadel Cruise Launcher
[snip]
TL;DR: Variety is the spice in this case, and I feel the way to tie this into more descriptive module names without loosing too much diversity is to use the already established races. I think it is a bad idea to homogenise ALL of the modules into one format for naming - rather, have the player figure out how certain races name their modules.
Tremendous ideas in this post. A great deal of food for thought. Thank you very much for your feedback. |
|
|
CCP Gnauton
C C P C C P Alliance
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:54:00 -
[406] - Quote
CCP Gnauton wrote:Hi guys,
First off, thank you all very much for the feedback. Even when not quite constructive, it has been consistently funny (the "Caldari Cruiser 3" post gave me a chuckle) and to-the-point (a swift kick in the genitals is always a potent mental image), and it's a great thing to see the level of passion you guys have for the game.
That being said, it's apparent from the tone and tenor of your dissent that we have quite a few things to reconsider here. After monitoring this thread closely since yesterday and convening this afternoon, we've decided on a few things.
The Hardwiring name changes will go in as planned, as will the armor/shield resistance module names.
Launchers: In light of your feedback, we have decided to hold back the launcher changes temporarily. The Light Missile Array has been renamed to Rapid Light Missile Launcher for conformity to the launcher scheme and to ease market searches, but aside from that we've not changed anything else for the time being. The new launcher names will remain on SiSi for the next week, and during that week we will monitor this thread closely for suggestions regarding the launcher scheme. Pending your feedback, we will decide on a course of action that hopefully takes into account as many of people's wishes as possible while remaining clear and sensible.
Meta Scheme: We've discussed this a great deal and watched the conversation closely, and on reflection it's probably a good idea for us to, as someone suggested, go back to the drawing board for a brief resketch. The original idea behind the four names had to do with meta mods' fictional underpinnings as equipment that's been modified by criminal organizations, which is why things like "Experimental" and "Prototype" seemed to me (and still do) to make perfect sense within their context of increasing rarity (though I will concede that perhaps those two are a little too similar). "Limited" may have been a bad choice, since it appears to be widely interpreted in its negative meaning rather than the "Limited Edition" connotation I was going for.
While there've been dozens of good (and a few very good) suggestions for alternative schemes, the proof is nevertheless in the pudding. Look at how many different schemes you guys came up with. Look at how different they are. Look at the disagreements amongst yourselves on which of them is the most intuitive. Everybody has different associations with all of these words,so in the end the fact remains that any word scheme will to some extent be arbitrary and prone to disagreement and confusion. This is not said in defense of my own scheme, because as you've continually (and rightfully) pointed out to me, it certainly has its flaws. Regardless, for this reason we're going to take a good hard look at the idea iself: is the meta scheme really serving the player, and is the cost to flavor too great? No promises yet, but at this relatively early stage, every option is still open (including tooltips or other UI solutions that might serve the same function better).
Missiles: We still do firmly believe in the usability of a single name across all missiles of a given damage type, but the "Trauma" designator seems to have violently struck a nerve with several of you guys. Since this is early days for this project, anything is possible. If anybody can come up with a sufficiently convincing and objective reason for why this name is the infernal love-child of bad taste and cluelessness, then I will seriously consider changing it. (I'm thinking something like "Anguish" might be good, whaddaya think? Just kidding, I like being alive.)
Target Painters: These names will not be changed under any circumstances, ever. Those were the first modules I ever named, and I snuck them under the radar without letting anyone know, to my then-producer's chagrin (he came to appreciate it later, though). I thought it would take a while for people to spot it, but of course it only took a couple of days before there was a forum thread. Can't slip much past you guys. Anyway, because of the status they've achieved, there was never any thought of renaming these at any point during this project's conception. Sorry for keeping you in suspense. Should have told you right away.
Ships: I know most of you were being tongue-in-cheek, but it bears mentioning just for posterity that no ship names will ever be changed. Was never on the cards and never will be.
That's all for now. Once again, I want to say thanks for the wealth of feedback you've provided, and pardon me for taking a while to respond (this is a large thread and it grew quite rapidly). We've noted down the main currents we've seen here, and will continue to modify the plan accordingly. In addition, for future iterations we will come up with some form of user testing well in advance of any actual development server changes, just to make sure we don't step in it like this again.
In any case, please do continue the conversation. I'll chime in where appropriate and update this thread as we reach concrete conclusions about our readjustment of direction, but mostly I'll be listening for your thoughts.
All the best, G
|
|
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
61
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:57:00 -
[407] - Quote
All praise Gnauton, for he hath saved our PWN, PWNT, PWND and PWNAGE! <3 |
Sarmatiko
546
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:59:00 -
[408] - Quote
CCP Gnauton wrote: Missiles: We still do firmly believe in the usability of a single name across all missiles of a given damage type, but the "Trauma" designator seems to have violently struck a nerve with several of you guys. Since this is early days for this project, anything is possible. If anybody can come up with a sufficiently convincing and objective reason for why this name is the infernal love-child of bad taste and cluelessness, then I will seriously consider changing it. (I'm thinking something like "Anguish" might be good, whaddaya think? Just kidding, I like being alive.)
CCP should make QuestionPro poll with existing and proposed variants for kinetic missile name (including Scourge ofc) and you will see player base opinion. I haven't met anyone who likes Trauma, really.
|
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
603
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 20:02:00 -
[409] - Quote
Sarmatiko wrote:CCP should make QuestionPro poll with existing and proposed variants for kinetic missile name (including Scourge ofc) and you will see player base opinion. I haven't met anyone who likes Trauma, really.
This is a good idea.
I haven't met anyone who likes Trauma, but I have met those who don't mind it (myself included).
Also, did I just see a CCP Gnauton post where he ended up quoting himself and having no other content? Are devs falling for the poor forums too, but we just don't notice it because they have the delete button for their posts the forum screws up? Rifterlings - Small gang lowsec combat corp specializing in frigates and cruisers. US Timezone veterans and newbies alike are welcome to join us. Come chat in the "we fly rifters" in-game channel. |
Gilbarun
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 20:17:00 -
[410] - Quote
Confirming I actually like trauma missiles
I also like the idea of items being named with the following scheme:
'(nickname)' (meta indicator) (type)
'arbalest' prototype cruise missile launcher
you should still reconsider the meta indicators and the launcher names, but you will gain ease of access without loosing flavor |
|
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
61
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 20:18:00 -
[411] - Quote
There really wasn't much wrong with the old missile names beyond not being able to see at a glance what dammage type they did. I think a simple prefix (EM, Thermal, Kinetic, Explosive) would have sufficed in this case (in my opinion).
But again, regardless of what changes are made, the functionality of the market search needs to be expanded uppon - but that doesn't mean add more buttons, just strictly under-the-hood functionality. That isn't exactly within the scope of this blog though. |
Richyme
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 20:20:00 -
[412] - Quote
CCP Gnauton wrote: Meta Scheme: We've discussed this a great deal and watched the conversation closely, and on reflection it's probably a good idea for us to, as someone suggested, go back to the drawing board (...)
Once you're there, have in mind, old names have to be included in new naming scheme. Out of game tools like EFT or EVEmon will adapt, old players will adapt, killboards will adapt, but all usefull information, created by players over years, thats already very well indexed by google, will keep old names. All those guides, fittings, forum discussions will suddenly become totally useless for new players, that will try to google for help. And search results full of obsolete information wont help new player experience at all, doing exactly opposite to what you try to achieve...
|
Tiger's Spirit
Troll Hunters INC.
50
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 20:22:00 -
[413] - Quote
Daedra Blue wrote:Bent Barrel wrote:
How about adding the meta level to the item icon ? Like we have the T2 designation (yellow corner), we can have another corner with the meta number .... problem solved, no need for renaming ....
Because you can not search for numbers in pictures....
Really hard to click the Variations tab at the module info. I dont understand, how many dumb player playing this game, who need simplifying some module names ??? |
|
CCP Gnauton
C C P C C P Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 20:27:00 -
[414] - Quote
JamesCLK wrote: But again, regardless of what changes are made, the functionality of the market search needs to be expanded uppon - but that doesn't mean add more buttons, just strictly under-the-hood functionality. That isn't exactly within the scope of this blog though.
You're right in that we shouldn't derail the discussion too much, but while improved market functionality is somewhat lateral to the main topic here, the end goals - usability and clear access to data - are the exact same. Any good ideas we find here we'll make sure to disseminate among the people who can make them happen. |
|
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
605
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 20:30:00 -
[415] - Quote
CCP Gnauton wrote: (including tooltips or other UI solutions that might serve the same function better)
This solution would probably be far, far better than renaming. Renaming can be done for clarity, but really shouldn't be done for ease of searching. The market search should have support for meta types, item groups, and other such things, similar to how the new asset search handles it (a new feature that has made me use the Asset search a lot more as it is far more powerful than before).
For example, for standardization and ease of comprehension, "150mm Prototype I Gauss Gun" can be renamed to "Experimental 150mm Prototype Gauss Railgun I". On the market you could reach it using "Experimental 150mm" (though that would find autocannons too) or using "Gauss 150mm", or by using meta search with something like "150mm rail meta:4".
Another example: the "'Languor' Drive Disruptor I" is a "classic" mod that has a signature name. It can be renamed to something like "Limited 'Languor' Stasis Webifier" (drive disruptor is frankly a bit misleading for those who can't see the icon). Then the market search can find it using "languor", "web", "limited web" or "meta:2 web".
The renaming should also be done on a case by case basis -- some mods are almost prefectly fine as they are (like "J5b Phased Protoype Warp Scrambler" possibly only being renamed to "Prototype J5b Phased Warp Scrambler"), while others need more name restructuring to be clear what they are without seeing their icon ("Kapteyn Sensor Array Inhibitor I" to "Limited 'Kepteyn' Remote Sensor Dampener"). A lot of work, but this is a big change, and preserving both the name uniqueness of modules while also enhancing their clarity is attention demanding work.
A popup tooltip like the asset search would be great to supplement getting people to learn how to use it in the market search.
Cheers, CCP Gnauton, for actually paying attention to the thread, and for considering options other than just renaming everything in sight. Rock on! Rifterlings - Small gang lowsec combat corp specializing in frigates and cruisers. US Timezone veterans and newbies alike are welcome to join us. Come chat in the "we fly rifters" in-game channel. |
Tiger's Spirit
Troll Hunters INC.
50
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 20:30:00 -
[416] - Quote
Richyme wrote:CCP Gnauton wrote: Meta Scheme: We've discussed this a great deal and watched the conversation closely, and on reflection it's probably a good idea for us to, as someone suggested, go back to the drawing board (...)
Once you're there, have in mind, old names have to be included in new naming scheme. Out of game tools like EFT or EVEmon will adapt, old players will adapt, killboards will adapt, but all usefull information, created by players over years, thats already very well indexed by google, will keep old names. All those guides, fittings, forum discussions will suddenly become totally useless for new players, that will try to google for help. And search results full of obsolete information wont help new player experience at all, doing exactly opposite to what you try to achieve...
agree This new scheme idea just will bring more mess and will be confuse the new players. (and dont forget the old players too) New players trying to learn Eve and all documents on web give to them false datas. New names ruins the killboards,ruins the old documents on web, ruins all third party softwares,fittings on battleclinic etc This changes not bring to us any positive things, just bring negative things. |
MuppetsSlayed
Angelus.Mortis GIANTSBANE.
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 20:51:00 -
[417] - Quote
Daedalus II wrote:I'd like to have the meta levels something like this:
Meta Level 1: Advanced Meta Level 2: Enhanced Meta Level 3: Experimental Meta Level 4: Upgraded
Why in this particular order you might ask? Well because it's in alphabetical order, and as such it will sort very nicely in all programs, but especially in the market.
Im not going to comment on the names you have chosen. But... Alphabetically sorting so stuff in the market search and browsing automatically sorting by meta level is something useful Not longer being able to use the search to find anything becuse everything has the same name is not useful. After years of learning stuff, no longer knowing what you spent all that time learning because it changed. Well thats not useful either.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3350
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 21:05:00 -
[418] - Quote
Hmm a names for a kinetic missiles.
Piledriver :D Impact Slam (an actual missile but its not that kinetic) Rhino Anvil Pounder Rockeye Mace Grinder Pulverize Pummel
Anyways thank you CCP for taking a chance to step back and review the module naming execution.
|
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
64
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 21:07:00 -
[419] - Quote
Sorting items on the market alphabetically is a bit hampering to begin with; "tiered" sorting by meta level would go a long way IMO.
For example: The small hyrbid blasters category on the market would first be "tiered" by calibre (smallest to largest), then by meta level (0 at the top). Separate the "tiers" with a thicker line to make it extra obvious that they're variations of the same module. Visually, nothing huge would have changed, but you would be able to count on the fact that the furthest down entry in a "tier" is the highest meta version without even reading its name.
This is how PythonFittingAssistant sorts its modules in the market window btw. |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
1959
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 21:11:00 -
[420] - Quote
CCP Gnauton wrote:snipped
First of all, thanks for the response and at least considering the ideas put forward.
Hardwirings - It seems fine. Nothing to add really, since you added functionality without screwing anything. Good job.
Launchers - The basic sceme seems reasonable and should work just fine after the initial confusion about assault launchers passes. They didn't have flavor names anyway and the old names where odd considering, that ammo is locked to a specific launcher type these days, so the upgrade to the names to reflect that was certainly warranted.
Meta Scheme - You say prototype and experimental are good names to use. I disagree, but I understand why you would use them. The real issue is, that you're trying to spread the same meta naming scheme too wide, so all you're left is generic, bland and arbitrary names for everything. Worse yet you're deluting that scheme even further and making the impact worse. The arbitrary part isn't bad per se, but it highlights the fact, that the name really could have been anything. Meaning you could have named the meta levels with something great and fitting and it wouldn't have been functionally any worse.
The point I want you and your team to consider is: What is the purpose of using the same meta name on everything and if it isn't a necessity, why not use group specific naming schemes? You could have just added M1,M2,M3 and M4 designation somewhere in the name and it would functionally do the same exact thing, would it not? It would be better though, since you could abandon the generic naming scheme and keep the old names or come up with group specific meta level names for modules. It would allow for more flavor filled and module group specific meta designations. For example propulsion mod group could use terms taken and modified from car tuning like super/turbo/overcharged, xxxxx(ex. plasma) injected or regenerative xxxx(lower energy consumption) . You could even choose the names to vaguely fit the benefit the meta levels offer. Compared to such options, it seems depressing to see the same lame and generic names on every meta module.
Missiles - I can see why you'd want a single name, but the word trauma conjures up a medical emergency and/or a leasurely session talking to a psychologist about your childhood. It could fit, but again it's too generic(see a pattern yet?), since it is a the term for injury and therefore conjures up images people don't think fits the name of a warhead.
Target Painters - You get it. This was good and instead of turning everything else to bland porridge, you should at least make the effort in to making the rest more like TPs. The names of TPs are totally stupid, but since you had a method in naming them, they are among the names that are great and easy to remember once you get it. You don't have to copy or mimic them, but try to bring that cool/sexy/oomph from that naming scheme in to the new ones.
Thanks for your time. But seriously, if you just want to put in generic meta names for everything, just add the M1-M4 code to the names and leave it at that. If you actually want to go the extra step and are serious about giving them an upgrade, split the modules in to sensible groups and give the groups individually crafted, fitting and cool meta names, that excite the players instead of bringing them down with their pervasive blandness.
|
|
Tashanaka
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 21:16:00 -
[421] - Quote
CCP Gnauton wrote: ... Missiles: We still do firmly believe in the usability of a single name across all missiles of a given damage type, but the "Trauma" designator seems to have violently struck a nerve with several of you guys. Since this is early days for this project, anything is possible. If anybody can come up with a sufficiently convincing and objective reason for why this name is the infernal love-child of bad taste and cluelessness, then I will seriously consider changing it. (I'm thinking something like "Anguish" might be good, whaddaya think? Just kidding, I like being alive.)..
What was wrong with Scourge as the flavoring name like you did with others? "Scourge Heavy Kinetic Missile" etc.
|
Sam Bowein
Sense Amid Madness
39
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 21:22:00 -
[422] - Quote
Gilbarun wrote:Confirming I actually like trauma missiles
I also like the idea of items being named with the following scheme:
'(nickname)' (meta indicator) (type)
'arbalest' prototype cruise missile launcher
you should still reconsider the meta indicators and the launcher names, but you will gain ease of access without loosing flavor The nickname (Arbalest) gives information about module type (missile launcher) and meta level (4). Two possibilities:
- If you know what it represents, all you need to know to fully identify the module is its type (cruise) So, in order to facilitate its identification by long time players, the beginning of the name should be 'Arbalest cruise' (you only need to read the first two words fully identify the module)
- If you don't know what the nickname represents, you need to read further. But the meta module is difficult to immediately understand: why using a word for describing a numerical scale ? Better keep the number logic !
TLDR: 'Arbalest' prototyp cruise missile launcher > 'Arbalest' cruise M4 missile launcher |
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
773
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 21:25:00 -
[423] - Quote
JamesCLK wrote:All praise Gnauton, for he hath saved our PWN, PWNT, PWND and PWNAGE! <3
This.
Thanks for listening to us, ok guys now we need to come up with an easier naming scheme but keep it super sci-fi .
My thoughts on rails -
When you do the bg research on rail guns there are different types rail guns , coil, gauss etc and the way they are built are all different. Anyway i digress.
For rails
Railgun I - ok
my issue is with the carbide and 'scout' guns. See when searching for items the minmatar meta 4 are all 'scout' cannons so all I have to do is search for scout but it also brings up minmatar. which is bad. I would suggest carbine but that might get mixed up with the carbide as they are too similar. Also cannon seems a little too out there as when i think of cannon i dont think of a rail gun.
So here our my thoughts.
Railgun I Plasma Armature Railgun Carbide Railgun Compressed Coil Railgun Prototype Gauss Gun Railgun II
- I am trying to keep comformity using guns in all of them. But looking at this random wiki page There are some interesting variations to the rail gun.
Now as for blasters - I have always found that was confusing until i could use t2 then i said screw trying to remember it. Limited, regulated, anode, modal. Now I think anode and modal are cool and easy to remember for 3 and 4, limited and regulated dont seem to fit the scheme. As i think about it more they dont seem to fit at all, any of them. When being issued a set of large armorments I like to think of a serial number or something on them.
so for blasters why not make a naming scheme kind of similar to that of implants.
Light neutron blaster I LNB-100 neutron blaster LNB-200 limited neutron blaster etc.
This preserves some of the original naming scheme but also gives a prefix similar to that of implants which makes it easier to search and preserve some uninqueness to naming.
As for others give me a few I think all minmatar guns should be renamed to the appropriate ammo they use from spare change to volkswagons. I for one welcome the new 1400 series volkswagon launcher II. |
Anvil44
Independent Traders and Builders MPA
56
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 21:36:00 -
[424] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:Hmm a names for a kinetic missiles.
meh Anvil meh Anyways thank you CCP for taking a chance to step back and review the module naming execution.
I HEARTILY approve of this choice! I may not like you or your point of view but you have a right to voice it. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
606
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 21:40:00 -
[425] - Quote
i am not sure what you intended to fix with the metalevel renaming in the first place.
the meta levels lead to the thinking that the higher the level the better the item. Items however have more than one attribute. So its hard to say what is better. For example, there are some meta 4 items which are better (or equal) in basically every attribute which matters including the price compared to the tech 2 equivalent. I am not sure if this is intended or just a balancing artifact.
So... please go back to the drawing board and think again about all that. Maybe it would make sense to use scify tokens instead of bad/better/ok/good modifiers. It looks to me like you tried something like that however since you didn't explain what you tried to do, it was probably misunderstood since 90% of all people i talked to think in the higher the meta, the better the item scheme.
and yeah, find a better name for small medium lasers since they collide with medium lasers - but i said that already :) a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Anvil44
Independent Traders and Builders MPA
56
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 21:42:00 -
[426] - Quote
Wow, lots of different ideas. Since you have this nifty forum CCP and players have come up with lots of idea, why not break them down by groups and let us VOTE on them in an online poll by ranking possibilities from best to worst? As long as we have an active account, we should get to voice an opinion. Filter them so one player gets one vote. Majority rules. You must be able to come up with 5 or 6 options that should make most people somewhat happy.
Lets face it, no matter what, this Pandora's Box has been opened. At least if I get a vote, I will feel that my opinion counted, even if it is the worst choice I could imagine. I may not like you or your point of view but you have a right to voice it. |
Phobos Vortex
Todespropheten T0DESPR0PHETEN
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 21:46:00 -
[427] - Quote
CCP Gnauton wrote: Missiles: We still do firmly believe in the usability of a single name across all missiles of a given damage type, but the "Trauma" designator seems to have violently struck a nerve with several of you guys. Since this is early days for this project, anything is possible. If anybody can come up with a sufficiently convincing and objective reason for why this name is the infernal love-child of bad taste and cluelessness, then I will seriously consider changing it. (I'm thinking something like "Anguish" might be good, whaddaya think? Just kidding, I like being alive.)
As a hopefully sufficiently convincing and objective reason to change the name "Trauma" is that this word is related to organic matter. Since the majority of Ships in EVE is not organic a medical expression like "Trauma" is simply not suitable. In addition the word Trauma lacks of coolness in comarison to old kinetic missile names like "Terror" or "Scourge" for example. I personally would prefer the name "Impact" for kinetic damage. Its much more suitable for what a kinetic missile does when it meets the cold steel of a spaceship. Much like "Inferno" it can easily be associated with the kind of damage it does while it simply sounds cool.
Here comes a list of words i would prefer:
Thermic: Inferno (cant think of a better name to assoiciate with "really hot" )
Kinetic: Impact (a hit of pure force to add more sparkling stars to see around)
Explosive: Detonator (thats what it does and sounds like "BAM")
EM: Photon (electromagnetic radiation consists of them and it permits to have photon torpedoes ) |
Cailais
Rekall Incorporated Sinewave Alliance
217
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 22:17:00 -
[428] - Quote
If name changes are needed, why not use the existing lore to draw inspiration. Perhaps Ytiri Corp are renowned for making reduced quality but inexpensive turrets systems?
Ytiri 150mm Railgun
or
Propel Dynamics 10mn Afterburner
Sounds much better to my mind than some random adjective & might even pave the way towards player corporation branding of material goods.
C.
|
Random Womble
Emo Rangers Electric Monkey Overlords
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 22:32:00 -
[429] - Quote
One thing that has been bugging me actually in general is the slight obsession with meta level as an indicator of the quality of the item as a higher meta level does not always mean a better item even within T1 named modules (faction have more examples but is outside the general scope of this discussion)
Missile launchers are a good example where although higher meta level does reflect more DPS for another attribute (CPU requirements) the order of best to worst by meta level is 1>4>2>3>0 (this is a good thing in a way as it makes lower grade weapons useful in some situations)
Then there are hull upgrades like cargo expanders. Firstly here to confuse matters you have module types with separate variations with the same name the basic expanded cargohold (and its offshoots) and the expanded cargohold I and its offspring .
Ignoring the Expanded Cargohold I family initially and looking only at the basic family all of the basic family are considered meta 0 yet have a cargo capacity bonus which ranges from 15% to 24.2% and when you then bring in the Expanded cargohold I family matters get more confusing with the best basic (meta 0) module being better than the meta1 and 2 modules for the cargohold I family variety of mods.
Then there are the ECCM mods and backup arrays which have one set of meta 0 and 1 modules but 2 meta 2, 3 and 4 modules,, the backup arrays have no variations in quality but the ECCM modules have different cycle timers, activation costs, and heat damage for the 2 modules at each meta level giving each different small advantages and disadvantages (and because of this i would advocate not removing them)
This is only if you rely on meta level as an indicator and generally i think that these variations that dont keep in line with meta level variation offer up different options (E.g. do i fit a co-proc and arbalest launchers or do i fit malkuths and fit a BCS) and faction and storyline items can often be worse or the same as T1 counterparts in some areas same goes for T2.
|
Anja Talis
Mimidae Risk Solutions
35
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 22:49:00 -
[430] - Quote
CCP Gnauton wrote: Missiles: We still do firmly believe in the usability of a single name across all missiles of a given damage type, but the "Trauma" designator seems to have violently struck a nerve with several of you guys. Since this is early days for this project, anything is possible. If anybody can come up with a sufficiently convincing and objective reason for why this name is the infernal love-child of bad taste and cluelessness, then I will seriously consider changing it. (I'm thinking something like "Anguish" might be good, whaddaya think? Just kidding, I like being alive.)
How about Scourge? :)
|
|
Dark Drifter
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
25
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 23:05:00 -
[431] - Quote
Zainou 'Snapshot' Heavy Missiles HM-703.....
is still a mouthful
change to just acronyms so this one would be:
Zainou 'Snapshot' HM-703
after all any idiot can figure out the acronyms for skills |
Bent Barrel
38
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 23:24:00 -
[432] - Quote
OMG Gnauton listens !!!
Anyway, please consider the plethora of guides that are no longer maintained (but still valid) that you will obsolete in one rather stupid change. EVE has a history of players for players guides and tools that use the current naming convention. This will all be obsoleted and new players will have to either laborously decrypt them or ask in the forums and wait.
Please bring back Scourge for the kinetic missile variant. |
Bent Barrel
38
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 23:28:00 -
[433] - Quote
Dark Drifter wrote:Zainou 'Snapshot' Heavy Missiles HM-703.....
is still a mouthful
change to just acronyms so this one would be:
Zainou 'Snapshot' HM-703
after all any idiot can figure out the acronyms for skills
will not work always ... there are duplicates ... f.e.:
Evasive Maneuvering - EM - agility Energy Management - EM - capacitor capacity
|
Adaahh Gee
Rock jockeyz Ushra'Khan
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 00:26:00 -
[434] - Quote
*Facepalm
More renaming?
After all the uproar and complaints from your existing paying customers, you want to rename more modules?
Do you ACTUALLY listen or is the voice of Sony in your ear more influential?
Why not remove ship spinning again? if you really want to wind us all up?
Do you not understand that by the standardization of naming, you are removing the immersion from the game.
NEWSFLASH! Immersion is what gets people logged on for 15 hours a day, it's what makes people tell their wife they can't go out that evening as there is a CTA scheduled, it is what makes Eve such an awesome game.
By dumbing down the game, you are really, genuinely alienating your core user base, and honestly, it will not attract new players, it will not make people who have a short attention span suddenly stay playing after their 14-day trial ends.
Please, please, please, Reconsider your streamlining, concentrate your efforts on some worthwhile UI improvements, Streamline the way roles are setup in corps so they are actually easy to understand, Add some more nice shiny ships, Tier 2 Destroyers with E-War bonus, make the Scythe and Bellicose actual useful ships in the way Blackbirds and Arbitrators are.
Finally, please understand that we love this game (Probably more than you do) and that we spend huge chunks of our lives dedicated to playing it (again, probably more than you do). The playerbase of Eve is an enormous resource for you, you can use it to make genuine, useful improvements. Or, you can change names of things that don't need changing and have a bunch of people on a forum whining about it. |
Ceptia Cyna
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 00:38:00 -
[435] - Quote
I support the name changes in general to make it more intutive to use items and their meta variations. This might help beginners while not cutting any gaming complexity. Nevertheless i will miss they joy i had back in the days finding an 'Arbalest' Heavy Missile Launcher.
You should somehow, as mentioned before, rethink the naming and maybe come up with some different wordings.
cheers \o/
PS: Some players should start to get a life... very very sad but true. |
Luba Cibre
51
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 01:12:00 -
[436] - Quote
In the past, i've searched for y-t8 if i want to find the best named cruiser sized mwd. Now, i've to search for experimental and find a sh.it ton of stuff or i have to search for experimental 10mn what is ******* long to search. In the future, if i'll search for experimental i'll find about 200 modules, thats stupid.
Just another example: The old names are like the diablo 2 item names, they're unique and cool, the new names are like the random generated green wow stuff "bracers of the eagle" or something like that ****. |
l0rd carlos
Friends Of Harassment
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 01:20:00 -
[437] - Quote
Luba Cibre wrote:In the past, i've searched for y-t8 if i want to find the best named cruiser sized mwd. Now, i've to search for experimental and find a sh.it ton of stuff or i have to search for experimental 10mn what is ******* long to search. Then just search for "10mn m" and you will get the list of all 10mn mwds, and tha tis freaking awsome. |
Luba Cibre
51
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 01:39:00 -
[438] - Quote
l0rd carlos wrote:Luba Cibre wrote:In the past, i've searched for y-t8 if i want to find the best named cruiser sized mwd. Now, i've to search for experimental and find a sh.it ton of stuff or i have to search for experimental 10mn what is ******* long to search. Then just search for "10mn m" and you will get the list of all 10mn mwds, and that is freaking awsome. but i don't want the complete list, i want one specific item. |
Debir Achen
EVE University Ivy League
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 03:00:00 -
[439] - Quote
I think "Scourge" has a special place because it is the ammunition used by drakes, and many of us have flown one at some point or other. There's not the same passion with the Cruise launchers, as none of the battleships are bonused to a specific type of ammo. You might get a similar effect if you renamed multifrequency or antimatter.
That said, I liked the flavour text associated with each missile name, and would much prefer the combined Scourge Kinetic Heavy Missile, which keeps the naming flavour (and unique name) and still completely defines the missile. |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1005
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 03:00:00 -
[440] - Quote
CCP Gnauton wrote:Hi guys, (including tooltips or other UI solutions that might serve the same function better).
Thank you
Get |
|
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1005
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 03:03:00 -
[441] - Quote
Debir Achen wrote:I think "Scourge" has a special place because it is the ammunition used by drakes, and many of us have flown one at some point or other. There's not the same passion with the Cruise launchers, as none of the battleships are bonused to a specific type of ammo. You might get a similar effect if you renamed multifrequency or antimatter.
That said, I liked the flavour text associated with each missile name, and would much prefer the combined Scourge Kinetic Heavy Missile, which keeps the naming flavour (and unique name) and still completely defines the missile. Yep - key parts of old names should remain in the new name if any renaming has to be done. Roll the old missile names back and add the damage type to them with one extra word. People will spank you much less after that (including myself .)
Get |
Danny Husk
EVE University Ivy League
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 04:21:00 -
[442] - Quote
There was nothing at all wrong with "Scourge," and as a menacing term it's much more congruent with "Interno," "Nova," and "Mjolnir." "Trauma" is just weird and dissonant, and has a biological tone out of step with stuff that suggests big blazing fireballs and giant hammers smashing stuff into little bits of dust.
It's been suggested by several others already, but the solution to the whole "Assault" conundrum is simple:
Cruise Missile Launcher Torpedo Launcher
Heavy Missile Launcher Heavy ROCKET Launcher (was HAML)
[Blitz/Tornado | Dual/Quad] Rapid-Fire Light Missile Array (was AML)
Light Missile Launcher Light Rocket Launcher
Problem solved.
The HAML <-> AML idea is just bad, bad, bad any way you spin it. There is nothing you could do that would work worse than that in making a little less tangle of the whole thing.
The new AML really needs a term that is distinctive enough that it doesn't suggest it is simply a "better" version of Light Missile Launcher (i.e., something akin to the "Dual 180mm" guns; not something that just sounds like an upgrade, but a different class of weapon composed of several of the smaller class weapons). Even "Rapid" sounds a little like it's just going to be a "better" light missile launcher, which will lead to endless confusion when noobs can't figure out why four of them won't fit on a Kestrel. |
David Carel
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
203
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 05:25:00 -
[443] - Quote
I don't support those name changes.
All of them. |
Midnight Hope
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 05:45:00 -
[444] - Quote
CCP Gnauton wrote:Hi guys,
...is the meta scheme really serving the player, and is the cost to flavor too great?...
First off, thanks for replying. I was afraid the feedback was going to go down the drain as it seemed to have happened when we were force fed the missile names.
For the record, and for the third time, I still think Trauma presents no clear advantage over Scourge. I agree with renaming them (firefox, gremlin, etc - way too many names), but you should have kept the more representative names (like scourge or mjolnir) instead of coming up with new ones that have absolutely no meaning to anyone in EVE.
Same goes for prop mods. Y-T8 was too well known to simply be discarded and changed to "experimental" (talking about lost flavor).
Which brings us to the meta levels. It seems a good idea to expose the meta levels on the names, but the cost of flavor (as you put it( is simply too great. Now, out the window goes Malkuth and Arbalest. Really?
If you are going to rename EVERYTHING to limited, experimental, prototype, etc (or whatever names you end up with), then EVE looses a lot of flavor. Everything will have the same 4 names, from guns to prop mods, from missile launchers to warp disruptors (at least the target painters are spared!!).
You are loosing a LOT of immersion and diluting the universe of EVE. You are loosing what EVE actually means, a far away dark and gritty place waiting among the stars...
PS: Sorry for getting sentimental at the end. On second thought, maybe you are going at this backwards. I understand the idea: make EVE easier to learn, make EVE easier for the new player. Maybe the way to do it is to actually mention the meta level concept in the tutorials. Teach them about the attributes (show info) each thing has and teach them about the compare tool, instead of renaming everything to fine, good, gooder, bestest.
|
Tiger's Spirit
Troll Hunters INC.
52
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 06:55:00 -
[445] - Quote
Adaahh Gee wrote:*Facepalm
More renaming?
After all the uproar and complaints from your existing paying customers, you want to rename more modules?
Do you ACTUALLY listen or is the voice of Sony in your ear more influential?
Why not remove ship spinning again? if you really want to wind us all up?
Do you not understand that by the standardization of naming, you are removing the immersion from the game.
NEWSFLASH! Immersion is what gets people logged on for 15 hours a day, it's what makes people tell their wife they can't go out that evening as there is a CTA scheduled, it is what makes Eve such an awesome game.
By dumbing down the game, you are really, genuinely alienating your core user base, and honestly, it will not attract new players, it will not make people who have a short attention span suddenly stay playing after their 14-day trial ends.
Please, please, please, Reconsider your streamlining, concentrate your efforts on some worthwhile UI improvements, Streamline the way roles are setup in corps so they are actually easy to understand, Add some more nice shiny ships, Tier 2 Destroyers with E-War bonus, make the Scythe and Bellicose actual useful ships in the way Blackbirds and Arbitrators are.
Finally, please understand that we love this game (Probably more than you do) and that we spend huge chunks of our lives dedicated to playing it (again, probably more than you do). The playerbase of Eve is an enormous resource for you, you can use it to make genuine, useful improvements. Or, you can change names of things that don't need changing and have a bunch of people on a forum whining about it.
+1
|
Main Malaak
Unreal Synergy The Methodical Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 07:21:00 -
[446] - Quote
tl;dr
Maybe someone already came up with the following idea, but if this is mostly about how you can display the meta level of an item, why not simply marking the icons with meta level tags, just like you do it with T2 or faction already?
simple and no messing around with item names
additionally i would implement a better sorting for the market
done. |
Sturmwolke
139
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 07:45:00 -
[447] - Quote
Lol, I posted (in pg20) without even reading any comments in this thread ... reflecting back, a lot of players think alike when it comes to certain things.
That leaves me to the point of this post, who was it that thought it was ok to remove "Scourge"? I'd like to put that person into a cage and sink him/her to the bottom of the ocean
|
Medusa The Gorgon
Temple of the Serpent The Gorgon Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 08:53:00 -
[448] - Quote
Boycott the changes! Save the PWNAGE target painter for future generations! |
Lady Spank
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
1662
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 09:09:00 -
[449] - Quote
CCP Gnauton wrote:While there've been dozens of good (and a few very good) suggestions for alternative schemes, the proof is nevertheless in the pudding. Look at how many different schemes you guys came up with. Look at how different they are. Look at the disagreements amongst yourselves on which of them is the most intuitive. Everybody has different associations with all of these words,so in the end the fact remains that any word scheme will to some extent be arbitrary and prone to disagreement and confusion. This is not said in defense of my own scheme, because as you've continually (and rightfully) pointed out to me, it certainly has its flaws. I think if you are going to run this line of argument then you very carefully need to consider the most obvious logical option.
No one had an issue with naming conventions before any of these changes were suggested/implemented. Since then there has been nothing but complaints. While people may have different suggestions, the best option is simply to leave them alone. This is not only for its simplicity, nor 'legacy' reasons but also immersion/roleplay. Why should modules manuifactured by different organisations follow any sort of dumbed down conventions, especially when this is meant to be a universe revolving around Corporate wars.
This is very much a case of if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Finally, you could consider changing Trauma to Greed in homage to the last time you steamrolled unpopular changes into the game. (a¦á_a¦â) ~ http://getoutnastyface.blogspot.com/ ~ (a¦á_a¦â) |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
259
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 09:40:00 -
[450] - Quote
Medusa The Gorgon wrote:Boycott the changes! Save the PWNAGE target painter for future generations!
Already saved. It was never on the table to change.
But if you'd read the thread before posting, you'd know that. Or even just read the dev comments on the thread. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
259
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 09:43:00 -
[451] - Quote
Midnight Hope wrote:For the record, and for the third time, I still think Trauma presents no clear advantage over Scourge. I agree with renaming them (firefox, gremlin, etc - way too many names), but you should have kept the more representative names (like scourge or mjolnir) instead of coming up with new ones that have absolutely no meaning to anyone in EVE.
probably should have picked one of the representative names, other than Mjolnir.
I'd mostly agree with the sentiment, though. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Wyte Ragnarok
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 09:50:00 -
[452] - Quote
tl;dr the thread.
The names have been fine for years. It takes a noob a couple of months (whilst they're learning the game) to realise Meta 4 > Meta 1. I'm getting more confused now with Experimental 10MN MWD. Whilst you're making the game 'tarded for all the WoW players who choose to take a break from killing whatever fairy tale animals they have on that server, your stupifying it for the rest of us as well. Eve used to proudly boast that it was possibly the most complex, open game, sandbox. And that was cool. Now I'm seeing more and more WoW players who have quit/taken a break and now want to try Eve. And by Jove it's difficult trying to explain the differences between things in Eve to their WoW, especially with their often young and dense skulls.
Talking of young, dense skulls; average pilot age. I'm 21 and the youngest in my corp. Ask yourself CCP, what was the average pilot age for the last few years? As far as I remember it was around 20-25. Why? Because a lot of mature players enjoy the game. What's the average age of CoD or WoW, you know the games where you hear high pitched, annoying, brain dead 12 year olds squawk about how unfair their death was and as if they died to you, noob. One of the main aspects I actually bother to stay round Eve is the company; the players. Internet spaceships is far too serious business for 12 year olds, which is why I support the more complex name system. Yes CCP, we know you want more customers but try somewhere else. 12 year old WoW players are probably still likely to get confused finding the undock button. |
Ceptia Cyna
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 10:31:00 -
[453] - Quote
Quote:Because a lot of mature players enjoy the game.
Sounds more like a bunch of whiney kids to me! "Oh, noes they taken away the unique names, i can no longer brag around how iam super nerd and memorized useless stuff for a video game to set myself appart cause i have no skill to do so."
REALLY? GET A LIFE!
Namechanging wont change anything about the complexity of EVE it will just sort out the fact that you had to stupidly memorize unnecessary unique item names. (Yes i will miss some but the overall benefit weights much more!)
I do however agree that the changes suggested should be re-tought considering the wording might be missleading as mentioned before. |
Velicitia
Open Designs
713
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 11:33:00 -
[454] - Quote
Lady Spank wrote:
Finally, you could consider changing Trauma to Greed in homage to the last time you steamrolled unpopular changes into the game.
+1, Lady Spank for CSM, etc, etc.
Also -- how about you play the damn game guys? And I mean, really play -- to the point where you've memorised enough of the module names that you're fitting to know what they do.
e.g. (for blasters) Neutron is better than Electron is better than Ion
T2 is (in general) better than Modal(M4) is better than Anode(M3) is better than Regulated(M2) is better than Limited(M1) is better than Meta 0
Wyte Ragnarok wrote: Yes CCP, we know you want more customers but try somewhere else. 12 year old WoW players are probably still likely to get confused finding the undock button.PVE Server Fixed that for you |
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
1829
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 11:39:00 -
[455] - Quote
CCP Gnauton wrote:While there've been dozens of good (and a few very good) suggestions for alternative schemes, the proof is nevertheless in the pudding. Look at how many different schemes you guys came up with. Look at how different they are. Look at the disagreements amongst yourselves on which of them is the most intuitive. Everybody has different associations with all of these words,so in the end the fact remains that any word scheme will to some extent be arbitrary and prone to disagreement and confusion. The only way to avoid these inevitable confusions is to encode an unambiguous sequence into the naming scheme, either explicitly (ie: Enhanced M1 "Phased" 1MN MicroWarpdrive I or Enhanced +¦ "Phased" 1MN MicroWarpdrive I), or implicitly by having the level prefix names in alpha sort order (A,B,C,D...)
For example (just off the top of my head):
Augumented Boosted Catalyzed Developed Re-Elect Trebor to the CSM - because I have not yet plumbed the depths of my inherent masochism!
My CSM Blog |
Tiger's Spirit
Troll Hunters INC.
53
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 12:09:00 -
[456] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:CCP Gnauton wrote:While there've been dozens of good (and a few very good) suggestions for alternative schemes, the proof is nevertheless in the pudding. Look at how many different schemes you guys came up with. Look at how different they are. Look at the disagreements amongst yourselves on which of them is the most intuitive. Everybody has different associations with all of these words,so in the end the fact remains that any word scheme will to some extent be arbitrary and prone to disagreement and confusion. The only way to avoid these inevitable confusions is to encode an unambiguous sequence into the naming scheme, either explicitly (ie: Enhanced M1 "Phased" 1MN MicroWarpdrive I or Enhanced +¦ "Phased" 1MN MicroWarpdrive I), or implicitly by having the level prefix names in alpha sort order (A,B,C,D...) For example (just off the top of my head): Augumented Boosted Catalyzed Developed
Oh no another stupid standarized name ideas. Because dump pilots we loss the sci-fi feeling for the game. It's time to change the ships to MK1/MK2/MK3/MK4 because some pilot not have brain and cant do thinking.
Pls CCP after this change, do another dumb name changes.
Give new names to shiptypes to, maybe that changes give to us same dumb feeling to the game.
Upgraded Gallente Battleship MK1 (Dominix) Limited Gallente Battleship MK2 (Megathron) Experimental Gallente Battleship MK3 (Hyperion) Prototype Gallente Battleship MK4 (Navy Mega)
Do you feel the idiotic and useless changes ??? |
Argyle Jones
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 12:13:00 -
[457] - Quote
A few comments on the dev-blog:
Quote:...but it's nonetheless true that there are certain things that add to this complexity in a meaningful way and other things that simply befuddle and obfuscate for no real reason. Needlessly complex item names, we've come to firmly believe, are among the latter.
I think it was established very early in this thread that complex item names are not needless. They add flavour to the game and helps with player immersion. Learning that an 'Arbalest' Heavy Missile Launcher is valuable and a much better weapon system than a 'Malkuth' Heavy Missile Launcher is a part of the player experience and defines player progression in the game world in a much more subtle, meaningful and elegant way than any experience bar or level system ever could.
Quote:our goal here is not removing EVE's flavor, it's improving EVE's usability. We have a deep and abiding love for our property's depth and flair, and we don't intend to harm it in the slightest. We just want to make things a little more accessible.
If the only goal is to make EVE more accessible I think you should write a pros and cons list. Here's what it might look like:
PRO Making EVE online a more accessible game to new players. Increased revenue from increase in new players who chose to subscribe after trial. (needs research)
CON Breaks killboards and causes your memberbase a large amount of hassle with updating killboards, loot management systems, etc. Removes SCI-FI flavour from the game, making the game a more bland and generic player experience. Is not consistent with the EVE lore that various competing corporations would all name their products with the same naming scheme. Breaks player immersion in game world, which is particularly important for the roleplaying community. Removes a part of the player progression experience.
I think that if you proceed with this name change you open up a veritable pandora's box, for one might then ask why other parts of the game are named in such a complex manner? What's next? Should Caldari ships have a 'Caldari Sensor Strength' attribute instead of Gravimetric? Should a 'Radar' site be called a 'Hacking' site? Why have veldspar asteroids that refine into tritanium when you can have tritanium asteroids that make tritanium ore that can be refined into tritanium minerals?
I strongly urge you to reconsider these changes. As someone else already said, dumbing down the game will not attract more players, it will simply make for a more bland gaming experience for your existing community. It would make more sense to focus your efforts on educating new players via the already extensive tutorial system and the wiki / help pages.
Just my two cents,
/Yargle
|
TripStarrR
Bladerunners The G0dfathers
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 12:34:00 -
[458] - Quote
form my understanding thier are 2 groupings of missiles...
guided and unguided
and these are split into size groupings of small, medium and large extra large and xxl...
Guided Missiles s - codename whatever m - codename whatever l - codename whatever xl - codename whatever xxl - codename whatever
Unguided Missiles s - codename whatever m - codename whatever l - codename whatever xl - codename whatever xxl - codename whatever
if you "tag" them rather than complicating thier names by trying to be descriptive it doesnt matter what u call them because i can just search for it based on tags rather than the name (like website or database searching)
so say im looking for a small kinetic unguided missile
excaliber rocket tags: small, light, missile, unguided, kinetic
do you see what i mean? it doesnt matter what the name is. it can be as funky as you want if the search and market browsing is catagory and tag based. like a proper search mechanic should be... so instead of making overcomplicated names just add tagging functionality and you solve the problem :)
what are peoples thoughts on this? |
Buzzmong
Aliastra Gallente Federation
144
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 12:59:00 -
[459] - Quote
Lady Spank wrote:CCP Gnauton wrote:While there've been dozens of good (and a few very good) suggestions for alternative schemes, the proof is nevertheless in the pudding. Look at how many different schemes you guys came up with. Look at how different they are. Look at the disagreements amongst yourselves on which of them is the most intuitive. Everybody has different associations with all of these words,so in the end the fact remains that any word scheme will to some extent be arbitrary and prone to disagreement and confusion. This is not said in defense of my own scheme, because as you've continually (and rightfully) pointed out to me, it certainly has its flaws. I think if you are going to run this line of argument then you very carefully need to consider the most obvious logical option. No one had an issue with naming conventions before any of these changes were suggested/implemented. Since then there has been nothing but complaints. While people may have different suggestions, the best option is simply to leave them alone. This is not only for its simplicity, nor 'legacy' reasons but also immersion/roleplay. Why should modules manuifactured by different organisations follow any sort of dumbed down conventions, especially when this is meant to be a universe revolving around Corporate wars. This is very much a case of if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Finally, you could consider changing Trauma to Greed in homage to the last time you steamrolled unpopular changes into the game.
I wouldn't normally like to be seen agreeing with Lady Spank, but on this point, he's pretty much right.
|
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
67
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 13:03:00 -
[460] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote: The only way to avoid these inevitable confusions is to encode an unambiguous sequence into the naming scheme, either explicitly (ie: Enhanced M1 "Phased" 1MN MicroWarpdrive I or Enhanced +¦ "Phased" 1MN MicroWarpdrive I), or implicitly by having the level prefix names in alpha sort order (A,B,C,D...)
For example (just off the top of my head):
Augumented Boosted Catalyzed Developed
This was kind of what I was pushing for earlier, just not as a homogenous change across all modules. Each race and/or faction should have it's own naming convention for certain things, but it should be consistant enough that if you know how the Amarr name their meta modules, you can figure out all of the Amarr sourced modules.
The variation in how each race or faction conveys that a module is superior to another would provide the spice, while keeping the benefits of consistancy in an organised naming structure (essentially, instead of having to remember meta names for every module class, you only need to remember the name structure for a handfull of factions).
For example:
Caldari (using the example in one of my earlier posts) [developer tag]-[class][tech][meta] [name]: - XT-i104 Invulnerability Field I - CN-C108 Caldari Navy Cruise Missile Launcher Amarr (borrows heavily from theological or religious sources, 'god' induced state of mind during development?): - +¦ 'Inspired' Energy Neutraliser I - +¦ 'Revealed' Tracking Disruptor I - +¦ 'Enlightened' - +¬ 'Perfected' Minmatar (salvaged or recycled is a recurring theme, nothing must be wasted - the more "upgrades" the better): - 'Repurposed' 150mm Autocannon I - 'Upgraded' 10MN Afterburner I - 'Optimized' Phased Weapon Navigation Generation Extron I
So on and so forth... |
|
SwissChris1
Battlestars S E D I T I O N
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 13:04:00 -
[461] - Quote
The hardwiring rename is alright but everything else is just ******* stupid....stop breaking our game! |
Pierced Brosmen
Priory Of The Lemon
56
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 13:25:00 -
[462] - Quote
Not sure if this has been brought up before in this thread (I'm at work and don't have time to read through it all)... but started to think about the item icons and the way T2/T3/Faction/Deadspace/Officer icons have their little badge in the top left corner...
Would it be possible without too much coding, to have a similar badge in any of the other corners, where the meta level of each item with a meta level greater then 0 (or in the range 1-4 atleast) to be listed?
That way it would be easy to see wich is what, without messing with the names. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
607
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 13:35:00 -
[463] - Quote
Lady Spank wrote: No one had an issue with naming conventions before any of these changes were suggested/implemented.
you can't just assume that. Those who had, probably stopped playing the trial or just take fittings from battle clinic for their ships without spending brain cycles. But this is yet another assumption. Only CCP has the statistics.
however i would be also curious what exactly the problem was they tried to fix. There are many alternatives to improve recognizability (is this a word?) of assets in general.
- icon, subicons, color coding - names - improve the utilities (don't search for the item name, take also attributes into account. E.g "battlecruiser" should return all BCs)
you just can't put everything into the name. a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Ceptia Cyna
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 13:35:00 -
[464] - Quote
Whats up with the selfishness and elitism here? Did i stumble into a WoW Forum?
If you do not want re-naming maybe this is for you:
Metalevel in the upper right corner of the Icon, opposite to the T2- ,Faction- ,DeD-Space- or Officermarker. This could of course just be implemented for Meta 0 to 4 asuming that you only want an easier start and people to later on study eve-online to keep playing. (yes sarcasm!)
Would look like this for an 'Arbalest' Heavy Missile Launcher" and like this for an "Heavy Missile Launcher II".
You keep your cool names to brag around that you invest more time in a virtual game then in your life and new players have an easy way to distinguish modules. |
Khorr Dark
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 14:00:00 -
[465] - Quote
- Implants -> hell, yeah.
- AML -> yep.
- Resist mods -> meh. If I can manage with the current names, it should be easy enough for everyone.
- Missiles -> please, no.
- AB renaming -> "Quad LiF Fueled I Booster Rockets" stays or I'm gone.
Also, this should be an UI thing, not a fluff thing. Do something like this:
Irori Neri wrote: [snip] 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.
...and forget about renaming most of the stuff. |
Anvil44
Independent Traders and Builders MPA
57
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 14:25:00 -
[466] - Quote
Sorry, I am sure I am going to be one of the 'hated' minority but the current naming conventions were in my humble opinion, pretty lousy and illogical right from the moment I started playing. I still have not bothered to memorize names of modules. I look up the information and use the compare button all the time when outfitting new ships. Or something similar when using EFT.
From a programmers standpoint, the naming convention that exists needs to be taken out behind the barn, shot, bludgeoned, burned and stomped on for good measure.
From a 'neato' factor, some of these names really really really HAVE to stay. Target Painters aside, some of the names are really cool and deserve to remain in the Eve history. But some of the names are confusing for no good reason. Why do Shield hardeners say Photon Scattering Field and the Resistance Amplifiers say Magnetic for EM resistance? If you need a capacitor recharger and you search by the word capacitor, you will find capacitor flux coils in that search. If you search by recharger, you will miss the Fixed Parallel Link-Capacitor I. It really should be better.
Making things logical is NOT DUMBING things down. It makes it so people can think things through and more quickly understand the complexity of Eve. Complexity does not = hard to learn. That's just a simple fallacy. I think if you look at all the vets in here saying they got through the names, it seems that probably they had so much trouble learning this in the first place that they want everyone else to have the same problems they did. At least to me that is what it sounds like for many of the complaints (but not all). The flavour of this game can be retained, while still making it logical. Leaving it 'as is', really leaves this game in the whole 'developed in a garage by some guys drinking beer' sort of place. Colourful but not too professional.
Losing the many colourful names leaves this game in the WOW zone. Change can be good. Change many times IS good. The complexity won't be lost. Lets just make sure we keep the flavour too. I may not like you or your point of view but you have a right to voice it. |
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
1833
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 14:32:00 -
[467] - Quote
Tiger's Spirit wrote:Oh no another stupid standarized name ideas. Because dump pilots we loss the sci-fi feeling for the game. It's time to change the ships to MK1/MK2/MK3/MK4 because some pilot not have brain and cant do thinking. Sorry, I don't buy into the "It was hard for me when I was a lad, so it should be hard for you now" argument. This was the same argument that was trotted out when the Skill Queue was introduced, and when Learning Skills were nuked.
Complexity can be good, but needless complexity is anathema. And being forced to memorize a bunch of arbitrary meta-level word encodings is needless complexity. Re-Elect Trebor to the CSM - because I have not yet plumbed the depths of my inherent masochism!
My CSM Blog |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion Mildly Intoxicated
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 14:42:00 -
[468] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote: Sorry, I don't buy into the "It was hard for me when I was a lad, so it should be hard for you now" argument. This was the same argument that was trotted out when the Skill Queue was introduced, and when Learning Skills were nuked.
Complexity can be good, but needless complexity is anathema. And being forced to memorize a bunch of arbitrary meta-level word encodings is needless complexity.
qft |
Jace Errata
Lawlz Brawlz
109
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 15:09:00 -
[469] - Quote
Phobos Vortex wrote:And for EM damage i had to google the word "Mjolnir" to determine what type of crispbread it is. Please consider to change it to something more sci-fi.
Sci-fi
Also curious as to why you had to Google "Mjolnir". It's pretty famous. There's even a recent (also famous) movie involving it, with another upcoming.
OT: I like the idea of [name] [damage type] [missile type]. That way, things would be unconfoozling, and I could still load up with a thousand Bloodclaw and go kill things \o/ Stealth OST puns and blatant lies since 2009 Jace Errata on Twitter |
Sturmwolke
141
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 15:27:00 -
[470] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote: Complexity can be good, but needless complexity is anathema. And being forced to memorize a bunch of arbitrary meta-level word encodings is needless complexity.
"Complexity", in the context of Meta 1-4 items distinction, is nothing more than how information is sorted and stored in the human brain. Is it needless? You seem to think it is judging from your post, I think not. Infact, I'm rather disappointed you think so for a veteran of so many years.
No matter how you approach it, putting a) prefix b) suffix c) completely changing the name to "make it less complex" end up butchering the item's identity. It's these unique identities that have kept people playing EVE. It's the unique gameplay that have made EVE grow without any direct competition. Carry on with the butchering, you'll be chipping away, little by little ... piece by piece .... of things that makes EVE such a memorable MMO. You "think" you're seeing the forest, but you're actually looking at the "trees".
You base your changes on the premise that it's needless, from where did you get this feedback from? I seem to remember Greyscale (initially) botching up the faction tower changes based on feedback from certain quarters. This is a major gamble that you or CCP have yet to address the cost of the impact - when you get it wrong. Doing nothing about it costs nothing - there are plenty of other ways go resolve this through the UI.
|
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
260
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 15:54:00 -
[471] - Quote
Khorr Dark wrote:
- AB renaming -> "Quad LiF Fueled I Booster Rockets" stays or I'm gone.
Uhhhh.
Looked at the market on TQ recently? The AB renaming has already happened. (Though the Quad LiF was a MWD)
Looks like it's had a positively life changing effect on you. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Tiger's Spirit
Troll Hunters INC.
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 15:56:00 -
[472] - Quote
Sturmwolke wrote:Trebor Daehdoow wrote: Complexity can be good, but needless complexity is anathema. And being forced to memorize a bunch of arbitrary meta-level word encodings is needless complexity.
"Complexity", in the context of Meta 1-4 items distinction, is nothing more than how information is sorted and stored in the human brain. Is it needless? You seem to think it is judging from your post, I think not. Infact, I'm rather disappointed you think so for a veteran of so many years. No matter how you approach it, putting a) prefix b) suffix c) completely changing the name to "make it less complex" end up butchering the item's identity. It's these unique identities that have kept people playing EVE. It's the unique gameplay that have made EVE grow without any direct competition. Carry on with the butchering, you'll be chipping away, little by little ... piece by piece .... of things that makes EVE such a memorable MMO. You "think" you're seeing the forest, but you're actually looking at the "trees". You base your changes on the premise that it's needless, from where did you get this feedback from? I seem to remember Greyscale (initially) botching up the faction tower changes based on feedback from certain quarters. This is a major gamble that you or CCP have yet to address the cost of the impact - when you get it wrong. Doing nothing about it costs nothing - there are plenty of other ways go resolve this through the UI.
+++1 "And being forced to memorize a bunch of arbitrary meta-level word encodings is needless complexity"
And he talking about comlexity. Who need memorize ??? Everyone need two click to see any item Variations and anyone can see the item names. This is too hard for them ? But they need more simplified solutions.
They need new names: Dumb Dumber Dumbest |
Szilardis
Phoibe Enterprises
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 16:00:00 -
[473] - Quote
There was an issue with parsing this post's BBCode |
Szilardis
Phoibe Enterprises
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 16:00:00 -
[474] - Quote
Jace Errata wrote:Phobos Vortex wrote:And for EM damage i had to google the word "Mjolnir" to determine what type of crispbread it is. Please consider to change it to something more sci-fi. Sci-fiAlso curious as to why you had to Google "Mjolnir". It's pretty famous. There's even a recent (also famous) movie involving it, with another upcoming.
Which in turn takes its name from Mj+¦lnir, the hammer of Thor the Thundergod of Norse mythology. Seems relevant to me. |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 16:05:00 -
[475] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:Sorry, I don't buy into the "It was hard for me when I was a lad, so it should be hard for you now" argument. This was the same argument that was trotted out when the Skill Queue was introduced, and when Learning Skills were nuked.
Complexity can be good, but needless complexity is anathema. And being forced to memorize a bunch of arbitrary meta-level word encodings is needless complexity.
Hey, it's cool if they make meta level easier to see at a glance. Add a common prefix, add a label on the icon, do whatever. I can never keep blaster meta levels straight anyway. I just don't want to see all of the old names vanish. If target painters are sacrosanct, why is it hard to believe that players are fond of other module/missile names, too? |
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
261
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 16:07:00 -
[476] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote: Complexity can be good, but needless complexity is anathema. And being forced to memorize a bunch of arbitrary meta-level word encodings is needless complexity.
You keep repeating this strawman as if hoping that repetition will make it true. It is not needless complexity anymore than the different nomenclatures for Intel, AMD, or nVidia products that perform similar functions. Your failure to recognize this highlights your inability to think even a little outside your box.
There are many good suggestions in this thread and others for methods to allow for a streamlined and usable nomenclature while keeping (or even improving) the color and history of the world of EVE. Yet a CCP employe, ironically carrying the title of a "Senior Writer", just doesn't seem to get it and instead insists on towing the line of some clueless marketing postulate to try and make the game more approachable. All the while making the game more confusing and more generic instead. |
Jace Errata
Lawlz Brawlz
109
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 16:18:00 -
[477] - Quote
Szilardis wrote:Jace Errata wrote:Phobos Vortex wrote:And for EM damage i had to google the word "Mjolnir" to determine what type of crispbread it is. Please consider to change it to something more sci-fi. Sci-fiAlso curious as to why you had to Google "Mjolnir". It's pretty famous. There's even a recent (also famous) movie involving it, with another upcoming. Which in turn takes its name from Mj+¦lnir, the hammer of Thor the Thundergod of Norse mythology. Seems relevant to me. Yeah, I know. I was just pointing out that there's already a sci-fi meaning for the word. (There hasn't been a Halo movie yet...) Stealth OST puns and blatant lies since 2009 Jace Errata on Twitter |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
488
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 16:20:00 -
[478] - Quote
Top 10 Reasons you shouldn't use Trauma :
Trauma is a type of Injury, not an "Effect". I TRAUMATIZE you, I don't "Trauma" you.
To complete the theme :
[list] Thermal would be Burn Missiles Explosive would be Chunky Salsa Missiles EM would be Irradiated Missiles. Kinetic is... Trauma (Blunt) You see what I'm saying????
Trauma is not an effect, it's the cause of the effect. Although that "sounds" cool in a complicated nerdy way. It's not. I don't "Trauma" you to death. I beat the living **** out of you, then leave you in a state of trauma on the ground. Bludgeon Missiles would sound cooler than trauma.
Trauma also sounds like a psychological problem with your panties.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
1837
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 16:38:00 -
[479] - Quote
Tiger's Spirit wrote:Who need memorize ??? Everyone need two click to see any item Variations and anyone can see the item names. This is too hard for them ? But they need more simplified solutions. The very fact that you think you have to do that -- click to figure out something that should be intuitive -- illustrates exactly the point I was trying to make.
The essence of great UI design is providing interfaces where you don't have to click, you don't have to think, you don't have to remember, you just know.
I would be perfectly happy with a naming system where there were a dozen prefixes for meta-1 items, all starting with the letter "a" - advanced, augmented, accelerated, assisted, abetted, etc. Because I could still see at a glance, without thinking, without remembering, that it was meta-1. Re-Elect Trebor to the CSM - because I have not yet plumbed the depths of my inherent masochism!
My CSM Blog |
DJ Obsidian
RONA Legion RONA Directorate
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 16:39:00 -
[480] - Quote
Ok did anyone bother to read ccp's reply a few pages ago.
The only thing getting new names is implants.
They are scrapping all other renaming plans until they get more player feed back. now rather than just whine and ***** why not suggest a good scheme that makes finding modules or finding meta levels easier, via market. We can still have complex names and retain immersion but be easy to understand. |
|
ORCACommander
Astral Synthetics
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 16:39:00 -
[481] - Quote
I would also like to add in that very few players bother memorizing module names or naming schemes for the entire armory on the market. rather they choose to memorize only what is relevant to them. I am a golem, cerb and basilisk pilot, so here i have memorized the naming conventions for only a few sections of modules and a few ammo types. although meta 4 shield rr i can't remember since i am not good with numeric nomenclature. but i know the meta progression of of all the mids and highs relevant to those fits. as well as lows.
each missile should have its own name as a standard trauma missile is not the same as a torpedo trauma missile so why would it essentially have the same model name.
HAMS should stay hams my cerb with a 2 second rate of can't be counted as anything less than heavy assault. but agreed AML needs its own ammo type or renamed but leave hams alone
trauma is definitely the wrong word for kinetic. Penetrator is more appropriate in my mind if a bit on the bland and unimaginative side |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
260
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 16:50:00 -
[482] - Quote
ORCACommander wrote:each missile should have its own name as a standard trauma missile is not the same as a torpedo trauma missile so why would it essentially have the same model name.
They're not model names. Unless you think that everyone in New Eden pays someone royalties, every time they make a kinetic damage heavy missile. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Szilardis
Phoibe Enterprises
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 17:19:00 -
[483] - Quote
Jace Errata wrote:Szilardis wrote:Jace Errata wrote:Phobos Vortex wrote:And for EM damage i had to google the word "Mjolnir" to determine what type of crispbread it is. Please consider to change it to something more sci-fi. Sci-fiAlso curious as to why you had to Google "Mjolnir". It's pretty famous. There's even a recent (also famous) movie involving it, with another upcoming. Which in turn takes its name from Mj+¦lnir, the hammer of Thor the Thundergod of Norse mythology. Seems relevant to me. Yeah, I know. I was just pointing out that there's already a sci-fi meaning for the word. (There hasn't been a Halo movie yet...) Wrong again |
Thelron
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 17:20:00 -
[484] - Quote
Changing the hardener names, quite nice... not sure about the *direct* move to resistance but not having two different resistances covered by modules with quite similar names.... brilliant!
Launchers... Meh. Siege probably should have been renamed to Torpedo back when you could no longer put anything but torps in them, but I agree with the "WTF AML" crowd... whatever ends up being the difference between "light missile launchers" and "bigger light missile launchers" please at least make it a "launcher".
Everything being called "experimental" or "prototype" or "limited" or whatever... NO NO NO NO NO. Standardized adjectives are good, as long as they don't entirely replace the existing varient names (so a Malkuth Rocket Launcher should be a "Meta 1 Adjective" 'Malkuth' Rocket Launcher, or "Meta 1 Adjective" Rocket Launcher - Malkuth Pattern). Please *DO NOT* do what was done to afterburners and replace the flavor with clarity. ADD clarity to the flavor. Second issue... Stop making early development versions that probably will blow up in your face ("Prototype") be the best version out there. Upgraded and Limited are fine, Experimental and Prototype need to be relegated to being flavor for stuff like "experimental cloaking device" where it's meant to be the crappy blows-up-in-your-face version. |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1014
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 17:43:00 -
[485] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:Tiger's Spirit wrote:Oh no another stupid standarized name ideas. Because dump pilots we loss the sci-fi feeling for the game. It's time to change the ships to MK1/MK2/MK3/MK4 because some pilot not have brain and cant do thinking. Sorry, I don't buy into the "It was hard for me when I was a lad, so it should be hard for you now" argument. This was the same argument that was trotted out when the Skill Queue was introduced, and when Learning Skills were nuked. Complexity can be good, but needless complexity is anathema. And being forced to memorize a bunch of arbitrary meta-level word encodings is needless complexity. Each time you defend wide scale name changes you will lose more CSM votes than gain them. Bad politics.
Get |
Tiger's Spirit
Troll Hunters INC.
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 18:52:00 -
[486] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:Tiger's Spirit wrote:Who need memorize ??? Everyone need two click to see any item Variations and anyone can see the item names. This is too hard for them ? But they need more simplified solutions. The very fact that you think you have to do that -- click to figure out something that should be intuitive -- illustrates exactly the point I was trying to make. The essence of great UI design is providing interfaces where you don't have to click, you don't have to think, you don't have to remember, you just know. I would be perfectly happy with a naming system where there were a dozen prefixes for meta-1 items, all starting with the letter "a" - advanced, augmented, accelerated, assisted, abetted, etc. Because I could still see at a glance, without thinking, without remembering, that it was meta-1.
Morning. Just for dumbs. Need meta icons and problem resolved.
http://iaro.3dmax.hu/images/2012/03/02/variations.jpg
Too hard for you to click variations tab ? |
Steijn
Quay Industries
38
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 19:10:00 -
[487] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote: And being forced to memorize a bunch of arbitrary meta-level word encodings is needless complexity.
then stick a coloured tag in the corner of each icon and keep everybody happy.
Your happy because it removes the 'complexity'.
We're happy because it does not remove the names, not because of simply removing/changing the actual 'name', but because the non-diverse and generic BS is kept out of the game. |
ORCACommander
Astral Synthetics
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 19:22:00 -
[488] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:ORCACommander wrote:each missile should have its own name as a standard trauma missile is not the same as a torpedo trauma missile so why would it essentially have the same model name. They're not model names. Unless you think that everyone in New Eden pays someone royalties, every time they make a kinetic damage heavy missile. gota justify those manufacturing fees somehow. but you have to agree it does not make sense to call something the same as something else that is not the same except for 1 atribute |
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
1841
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 21:02:00 -
[489] - Quote
Grey Stormshadow wrote:Each time you defend wide scale name changes you will lose more CSM votes than gain them. Bad politics. I have a track-record of saying what I think without worrying to much about the effect they might have on my re-election chances.
Hopefully, this appeals to people who would prefer to support a candidate who says what he thinks, rather than what he thinks the voters want to hear.
Re-Elect Trebor to the CSM - because I have not yet plumbed the depths of my inherent masochism!
My CSM Blog |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1017
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 21:10:00 -
[490] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:Grey Stormshadow wrote:Each time you defend wide scale name changes you will lose more CSM votes than gain them. Bad politics. I have a track-record of saying what I think without worrying to much about the effect they might have on my re-election chances. Hopefully, this appeals to people who would prefer to support a candidate who says what he thinks, rather than what he thinks the voters want to hear. Yea you will get re-elected... you're very active in forums and keep people updated. That is the main reason why one of my accounts has usually thrown you a vote even we don't always agree about everything :)
Get |
|
Tiger's Spirit
Troll Hunters INC.
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 21:45:00 -
[491] - Quote
Grey Stormshadow wrote:Trebor Daehdoow wrote:Grey Stormshadow wrote:Each time you defend wide scale name changes you will lose more CSM votes than gain them. Bad politics. I have a track-record of saying what I think without worrying to much about the effect they might have on my re-election chances. Hopefully, this appeals to people who would prefer to support a candidate who says what he thinks, rather than what he thinks the voters want to hear. Yea you will get re-elected...
Or not, but this is an another story. :)
|
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
1841
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 22:00:00 -
[492] - Quote
Grey Stormshadow wrote:Yea you will get re-elected... you're very active in forums and keep people updated. That is the main reason why one of my accounts has usually thrown you a vote even we don't always agree about everything :) Good. I want people to disagree with me -- having people continually tell me I'm correct is boring. I want my positions to be challenged, and if your argument is strong enough, I'll modify my position without a lot of emo.
It is only by vigorous and fair debate that interested observers can get a good sense of the issues and the merits of proposed solutions. In this forum, those interested observers often have names that start with "CCP"
PS: don't assume I'm a lock for re-election. I certainly don't! Re-Elect Trebor to the CSM - because I have not yet plumbed the depths of my inherent masochism!
My CSM Blog |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1018
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 22:36:00 -
[493] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:Grey Stormshadow wrote:Yea you will get re-elected... you're very active in forums and keep people updated. That is the main reason why one of my accounts has usually thrown you a vote even we don't always agree about everything :) Good. I want people to disagree with me -- having people continually tell me I'm correct is boring. I want my positions to be challenged, and if your argument is strong enough, I'll modify my position without a lot of emo. It is only by vigorous and fair debate that interested observers can get a good sense of the issues and the merits of proposed solutions. In this forum, those interested observers often have names that start with "CCP" Naa... I'm done with this subject for now as the main argument took place yesterday and mutual agreement has been reached already. CCP had good intentions to reach perfectly good goal, but primary methods to make that happen were not the best. Now there is time out for rethinking stuff over before deciding about further actions for reaching the goals which were set.
The implant/hardwiring name changes which continue are pretty much justified even though I would like to see some additional stuff done to them also. Missiles are still a bit open case as far as I understand... hopefully those will be sorted in the end too.
Get |
Freelancer117
Obsidian Tigers
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 22:43:00 -
[494] - Quote
Can you please put the text line,
that says what meta level an item is,
that you can find in the attributes tab under the info button,
on the same line as all the other items and preferable in the top part of the attributes tab.
This way we can familiarize the new names to the meta level, when keeping the attribute tab open.
Adding this reply, because the line saying what meta level an item is,
is usually at the bottom of the tab and not always on the same height when you switch items. |
Snus Mumriken
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 23:35:00 -
[495] - Quote
Proposal Add the old flavor names to Afterburners and MicroWarpdrives but keep the new naming scheme as with the missile launchers. The whole names can't be used, because that would make them sound weird - like Limited 1MN 'Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters' MicroWarpdrive I. Also the force should be put right after the meta prefix to distinguish ABs and MWDs of different strength even when there is only limited space for the module name under the icon.
Afterburners
- Limited 1MN Afterburner I Limited 1MN 'Monopropellant' Afterburner I
- Experimental 1MN Afterburner I Experimental 1MN 'Cold-Gas Arcjet' Afterburner I
- Experimental 10MN Afterburner I Experimental 10MN 'Y-S8 Hydrocarbon' Afterburner I
- Experimental 100MN Afterburner I Experimental 100MN 'LiF Fueled' Afterburner I
MicroWarpdrives
- Upgraded 1MN MicroWarpdrive I Upgraded 1MN 'Phased Monopropellant' MicroWarpdrive I
- Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I Limited 1MN 'Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet' MicroWarpdrive I
- Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I Experimental 10MN 'Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon' MicroWarpdrive I
- Prototype 100MN MicroWarpdrive I Prototype 100MN 'Quad LiF Fueled' MicroWarpdrive I
Additionally, why do the available meta levels of ABs and MWDs seem just completely random? I'm on Twitter. |
Terram alWathani
Ragnarok Rising Sspectre
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 23:55:00 -
[496] - Quote
Icons ftw. Instant recognition of meta level without having to rename everything (plus the attendant hassle of third party apps being broken for awhile). Keep it simple.
Taking the above screenshot with a little amateur Gimp action and voila! I'll let you artistic design types argue over the proper color to use and all... http://i43.tinypic.com/ab1lj5.jpg |
Shin Dari
The Vendunari Warped Aggression
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 00:55:00 -
[497] - Quote
I can sympathize that people want some flavor, but one thing that has always annoyed me was the use of obvious nonsense in the names. So much is complete and obvious BS. I will be very glad to be rid of the excessive bad technobabble.
If CCP is going to add a flavor section to the modules names then they should look at using short flavor names/terms that make sense. If really necessary I wouldn't even mind them using NPC Corp names. So that we have Meta brands for specific factions.
Also CCP should avoid meta terms that deal with quantities, seeing hundreds of pieces of the exact same 'limited' module in the market breaks my suspension of disbelief. Please reserve such terms for storyline items.
Some suggestions for meta level terms: Tuned, Upgraded, Enhanced, Perfected,
|
Josef Stylin
University of Caille Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 00:57:00 -
[498] - Quote
Don't fix what ain't broke. |
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
773
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 01:41:00 -
[499] - Quote
While icons are nice, the issue that CCP keeps bringing up is how will a new player know the difference when buying from the market menu?
Most of the idea ccp has is to make market searchign more fluid not only for players but easier on the system. |
Erik Finnegan
Polytechnique Gallenteenne
52
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 02:06:00 -
[500] - Quote
If only the names were not so boring... Introduce a scheme, yes, but make the names poetic, sci-fi |
|
Sturmwolke
144
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 03:26:00 -
[501] - Quote
Obsidian Hawk wrote:While icons are nice, the issue that CCP keeps bringing up is how will a new player know the difference when buying from the market menu? Most of the idea ccp has is to make market searchign more fluid not only for players but easier on the system.
Elementary my dear Watson. Make the market search more powerful.
|
Jalmari Huitsikko
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
47
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 11:10:00 -
[502] - Quote
Josef Stylin wrote:Don't fix what ain't broke.
this
also give back my scourges and mwd now
|
Morrigu Storm
Euphoria Released 0ccupational Hazzard
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 11:18:00 -
[503] - Quote
I think this is a shame personally.
If this is the logical way to go why do we need ship names just call them names like Gallente cruiser tier 1, Amarr Battleship tier 3 etc?
Trust me if I can learn the current names of all the mods then anyone can.
|
Maerthasch
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 11:53:00 -
[504] - Quote
Didn't read the whole thread, but personally I would prefer something in this order:
Meta 1: Tuned/Boosted/Adapted Meta 2: Enhanced/Improved/Upgraded Meta 3: Limited Edition/Prototype/Experimental Meta 4: Breakthrough/Advanced/State-of-the-art
|
Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 13:07:00 -
[505] - Quote
Probably a good thing that I read this blog pre-coffee, because I feel the blood pressure going up and up.
First of all, changing nomenclature in a game that is 8+ years old with players of a similar duration seems asinine. What I see here is one name or adjective replacing the original name or adjective. How does this add value to your current and new subscribers? Is this intended to help with EVE's learning curve, perhaps?
Second, and I know it has been said before, you guys are not doing any favors to the ecosystem of 3rd party developers who have built up all of the apps that make EVE more usable and viable. As an end-user, I count on certain 3rd party efforts to make my time spent in EVE more efficient and successful. This initiative is not helpful in that regard.
Speaking only for myself, I find no value, but rather inconvenience and irritation having to suffer though this nonsense. 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284286 |
Mariner6
EVE University Ivy League
48
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 15:44:00 -
[506] - Quote
Hate the changes to the armor names. Nothing wrong with magnetic, reflective etc. They already make very obvious sense. In fact the only changes I do like are to the implants. |
Jacob Stein
State War Academy Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 17:28:00 -
[507] - Quote
I won't go to fanfest just because if I'll meet that mf who renamed MY DAM SCOURGES to some whatewer 'trauma' is gonna get raped! |
Bloodhands
hirr Against ALL Authorities
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 18:08:00 -
[508] - Quote
Please for the love of god, don't change my pwnage (target painter) |
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
773
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 19:14:00 -
[509] - Quote
Bloodhands wrote:Please for the love of god, don't change my pwnage (target painter)
Someone hasnt bothered reading this entire thread. At about page 20 they said they are not changing target painters. |
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
773
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 19:19:00 -
[510] - Quote
Sturmwolke wrote:Obsidian Hawk wrote:While icons are nice, the issue that CCP keeps bringing up is how will a new player know the difference when buying from the market menu? Most of the idea ccp has is to make market searchign more fluid not only for players but easier on the system. Elementary my dear Watson. Make the market search more powerful.
Thats easier said than done. But a good point, rather than renaming modules would it be easier to give the market overhaul?
say when you browse to an item it has the meta icon on the right side next to the info bar? or maybe on the left before the item name. |
|
Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
73
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 00:28:00 -
[511] - Quote
Here's a question that's been bugging me more and more: whom is this change supposed to benefit?
Before I get to it, I'd like to make a few comments.
I think the missile name change was on the whole a very good idea. Maybe there should've been some difference in nomenclature between rockets, missiles and torpedoes, and maybe "Scourge" should have been used instead of "Trauma," but on the whole it is now easier for all players to quickly find the right missile damage type, which is a good thing.
I also think the skill implant name change is good. It mostly preserves the flavor and uniqueness of the implants, but adds useful information so that it is easier to find the right implant.
However, the module name change doesn't seem to benefit anyone very much, for a very simple reason: no sane player selects directly from the market which modules to fit on a ship.
Older players, unless they're complete nitwits, use a third-party fitting tool like EFT or PyFA or borrow fittings from other players. The actual fitting of a ship occurs completely out of game, where the name and nominal meta-level of the modules is irrelevant, since third-party tools already present all relevant module stats and their effect on the ship to the player. Adding the meta level of a module to its name would be completely superfluous. A player who fits the ship in EFT doesn't care about the name of the module he needs for the purposes of selecting it, and he most certainly doesn't care whether the meta level of the item is in the game, because he is looking at specific stats and not at an imperfect proxy like meta level. For example, if the EFT fitting for the ship I'm flying calls for a "Large 'Regard' Power Projector," I'm going to search for that module on the market and fit it, unless I cannot afford it, in which case I will go back to EFT and look at the next-best item and see if it still works, because lower-meta modules have higher fitting requirements. In either case I won't care one bit whether you change the name of the above module to "Large Awesome Energy Transporter," so long as it shows up properly in EFT. So older players aren't really going to benefit from this change in any way.
Newer players might look on the market for modules. Such players however also do not really care about module names, for two reasons. (1) They usually cannot afford anything but the lowest-meta items. (2) If they are smart, they will look at fittings from other players, and copy those, in which case the names of the modules are irrelevant for the reasons already stated. (3) If they are really smart, or simply ask in help chat, or ask their corp/alliance members, they will be referred to a third-party fitting tool and will become like older players mentioned above and will not care about module names, just what the modules do.
The only time module names will matter is if the player is browsing the market categories, or looking up variants on the market or via the "show variants" function. Two changes will help players in such cases much more than any name change. (1) Sort modules in the market by meta level rather than by name; this way it will be readily apparent which modules are "better" than others. (2) Allow players to jump directly to a module's market category by right-clicking on a module name. EFT already does this, and so does PyFA most likely. This way a player can quickly look up different-meta modules and see the prices for all at a glance.
So for both older and newer players, module names shouldn't be causing problems. If you really want to help out new players, direct them in the tutorial to third-party tools like EFT and PyFA. Ideally such tools should be integrated directly into EVE itself, but that's not entirely necessary. Also make the market search more powerful, change the sorting of items on the market, and maybe even change module icons to indicate meta level. There are a myriad of ways in which you could make it easier for new players to fit ships and find modules, and all of them are better than homogenizing module names.
At the same time, a wholesale name change will break all of the fitting guides that have been written for EVE. Considering the extent to which EVE relies on player-written guides, ask if breaking all of those guides is something you really want to do without a very good reason. A wholesale name change will also significantly reduce the feeling of EVE as a real universe. Ask if that is something desirable, considering how often CCP proclaims the importance of immersion in EVE.
And if are still planning on overhauling all the module names, please at least consider all of the alternative proposals that have been put forth in this thread. I do not object to the idea of making this game easier for players, especially new players. I do object to the manner in which you are going about it. |
Embrodak Kazerin
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 01:05:00 -
[512] - Quote
I wrote up a big post, but the forum ate it so you're getting the short version.
This attempt at renaming the items is much better than the last one. Names are more intuitive, but flavor is preserved. Battleship missiles and implants really needed it.
Will you be redoing the names you already changed? "Trauma" is a stupid name for a missile. How about "Scourge Kinetic"?
Meta prefixes need more work. When I first played Eve, I avoided all the "Limited" guns because I thought it meant they were worse than the regular ones. "Experimental" and "prototype" don't make sense either when we're mass producing T2 variants.
My suggestion:
Meta1: Calibrated Meta2: Optimized Meta3: Enhanced Meta4: Upgraded
The first two words imply software adjustments, while the last two imply improvements to the hardware itself. That should make the relative quality levels more intuitive while keeping within the Eve style. |
ScooterPuff Sr
Galactic BANDITOS
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 01:06:00 -
[513] - Quote
Embrodak Kazerin wrote:I wrote up a big post, but the forum ate it so you're getting the short version.
This attempt at renaming the items is much better than the last one. Names are more intuitive, but flavor is preserved. Battleship missiles and implants really needed it.
Will you be redoing the names you already changed? "Trauma" is a stupid name for a missile. How about "Scourge Kinetic"?
Meta prefixes need more work. When I first played Eve, I avoided all the "Limited" guns because I thought it meant they were worse than the regular ones. "Experimental" and "prototype" don't make sense either when we're mass producing T2 variants.
My suggestion:
Meta1: Calibrated Meta2: Optimized Meta3: Enhanced Meta4: Upgraded
The first two words imply software adjustments, while the last two imply improvements to the hardware itself. That should make the relative quality levels more intuitive while keeping within the Eve style. i suggest they put it back the way it was. or make it more confusing. whats the point of a game if no ones on their toes
|
Samroski
Games Inc. EVE Trade Consortium
45
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 08:08:00 -
[514] - Quote
Embrodak Kazerin wrote:I wrote up a big post, but the forum ate it so you're getting the short version. My suggestion: Meta1: Calibrated Meta2: Optimized Meta3: Enhanced Meta4: Upgraded
The above makes much more sense than the experimental/prototype system suggested.
No matter what convention is used, I am delighted that I will be able to recognize meta 1-4 items by name. There are multiple applications of this change in every aspect of the game, and as a trader I love it.
I am in favour of all the changes suggested (esp. hardwiring), though I also think that the "array" in a launcher name makes absolutely no sense. Totally counter-intuitive, and counter-productive to the objectives of this exercise.
Keep up the good work! |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
192
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 18:59:00 -
[515] - Quote
-1 for thinking too much about gross simplicity and not enough about retaining the sci-fi flavor of the game. This is almost as ridiculous as renaming "light sabers" to "blue swords" in Star Wars, or retconning Star Trek to rename "phasers" to "guns".
"Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters" simply sounds much more interesting than "Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I".
If you insist on incorporating the meta level in the name, then simply add it to the existing name, ex. Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet Meta-2 Thrusters, as you are proposing to do with the hardwiring implants. |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
192
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 19:08:00 -
[516] - Quote
+1 for changes to names for hardwiring implants.
However, I'd suggest removing the [Skill/Function Name] and only keep the [Two-Letter Flavor Acronym] - you don't need both. If necessary, you can always expand the two-letter acronym to a three-letter acronym, to allow for additional differentiation between similarly initialed skills/functions. |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
192
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 19:19:00 -
[517] - Quote
-1 for renaming Armor Coating/Armor Hardener/Armor Plating Energized/Shield Resistance Amplifier/Shield Hardener modules.
These modules are already consistently named and the names already indicate the damage types which they affect.
It is simply not necessary to include the actual damage type in every module name. You might as well suggest changing weapon names, too - ie. lasers to "EM/thermal guns" and hybrids to "thermal/kinetic" guns. |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
192
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 19:27:00 -
[518] - Quote
-1 to changing "Heavy Assault Missile Launchers" to "Assault Missile Launchers".
Change one, or change the other, if you feel the need to address "the counterintuitive assault launcher/heavy assault launcher dichotomy", but don't rename one into the other.
This will just increase the confusion, not reduce it, esp. due to the amount of out-of-game legacy material on the Internet which refers to the old names and which CCP cannot edit. |
Velicitia
Open Designs
722
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 21:24:00 -
[519] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:-1 for renaming Armor Coating/Armor Hardener/Armor Plating Energized/Shield Resistance Amplifier/Shield Hardener modules.
These modules are already consistently named and the names already indicate the damage types which they affect.
It is simply not necessary to include the actual damage type in every module name. You might as well suggest changing weapon names, too - ie. lasers to "EM/thermal guns" and hybrids to "thermal/kinetic" guns.
this, pretty much.
also, +1 to all the comments mentioning you're breaking EIGHT YEARS worth of guides. |
Mr LaForge
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
245
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 01:03:00 -
[520] - Quote
Can't quote this hard enough!
Stuff Goes here |
|
Trainwreck McGee
Ghost Ship Inc.
229
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 16:14:00 -
[521] - Quote
God dammit CCP either
Make the names ACTUALLY easier to follow
or leave them alone
These changes are not good. CCP Trainwreck - Weekend Custodial Engineer / CCP Necrogoats foot stool |
None ofthe Above
105
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 18:43:00 -
[522] - Quote
Embrodak Kazerin wrote:I wrote up a big post, but the forum ate it so you're getting the short version.
This attempt at renaming the items is much better than the last one. Names are more intuitive, but flavor is preserved. Battleship missiles and implants really needed it.
Will you be redoing the names you already changed? "Trauma" is a stupid name for a missile. How about "Scourge Kinetic"?
Meta prefixes need more work. When I first played Eve, I avoided all the "Limited" guns because I thought it meant they were worse than the regular ones. "Experimental" and "prototype" don't make sense either when we're mass producing T2 variants.
My suggestion:
Meta1: Calibrated Meta2: Optimized Meta3: Enhanced Meta4: Upgraded
The first two words imply software adjustments, while the last two imply improvements to the hardware itself. That should make the relative quality levels more intuitive while keeping within the Eve style.
This one is good, although I would swap Optimized and Enhanced to get the alphanumeric sort to match the Meta levels.
And add the flavor name in single quotes.
Even None ofthe Above supports Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM7! |
Mirajane Cromwell
51
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 19:54:00 -
[523] - Quote
I think it's more of UI problem than obscure item name problem - why not just add M1, M2, M3, M4 tags to the corner of item logos (like tech 2 tag) so that you'll immediately see to which meta group each item belongs to? Can't UI designers figure out ways to make it easier to see relevant module info in various windows?
If the new naming goes through, then I'd have dozens of item stacks that start with name "prototype" or "experimental" etc so if I use the list view in hangar, it's going to be really painful to find that one particular item - the new naming scheme would be trader's nightmare. So I'd rather have meta info shown in item logos and in item lists as well as in market lists. |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
294
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 21:21:00 -
[524] - Quote
The only naming change that would had made any sense was from "Paradise cruise missile" to "Paradise EM Cruise missile".
Obviously that was too obvious and CCP knew better... EVE residents: 5% Wormholes; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 6: 100% Nullsec residents.
EVE demographics vs CSM demographics, nothing to worry about...-á |
Anja Talis
Mimidae Risk Solutions
38
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 22:38:00 -
[525] - Quote
Just to throw my opinion in, I think you should reset all the changes. I don't think changing the names like this helps with the NPE really. They will still have to look at the attributes on each of the modules to decide what they want to fit, or it won't actually matter an they'll buy the cheapest or fit what is already in their haul.
If you want to clarify the damage types, add it as a "EM/EXP" bit to the name to make it clearer, but how are you handling projectile/hybrid ammo?
It makes complete RP sense for the different missile types to have different names like they did. A Thorn rocket would be a very different thing to a scourge heavy missile. Completely different size, ranges, weight, payload etc. The only thing that would be the same is the type of damage they do, so why call them both Trauma? The change has just made it HARDER to find them in the market or items window. Instead of searching for "Thorn" and finding a load of relevant results, I now have to search for Trauma Heavy. Except that doesn't work, because it misses out the Rages and Javelins!
The prop mod changes are a real shame. They are some of the best named items in the game IMHO and I really miss them. I actually think it's more confusing now. I keep looking for Experimental 1MN MWD, but it doesn't exist, instead I need to look for the Limited? Yet there is an Experimental 10MN MWD? How is this any easier than searching for Catalyzed Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters for the best meta mwd or Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters for the AB one? It says a lot that I can still remember them to dump them here.
Implants is a good move. +1 on them.
Just as an anecdotal point, I've flown with and trained loads of newbies and I don't remember a single complaint about being able to tell the difference between them by name. I do remember people talking about how they liked the names though :/ |
Noran Talidan
Unity College
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 01:28:00 -
[526] - Quote
Really? CCP Really!!!!
I've played eve since '04, you know back when the learning curve was so high it was practically a wall.
And i can tell ya... i never had once thought about "These names suck". I thought they were creative... and it really seems like you guy lost alot of that since then.
This is the stupidest idea I've heard in a while... I was alright with the missles... but everything else?? Get with it.
You might aswell rename the game while your at it.... I know!!!! "SpaceShips -- Online!!!"
I got anouther suggestion... rename the Armageddon "The Space Dildo" and the navy issue "The Better Space Dildo"... and then i'll shove it where it belongs... which dev first????
Thanks for getting my blood pressure going!!
|
Tiger's Spirit
Troll Hunters INC.
56
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 08:06:00 -
[527] - Quote
Noran Talidan wrote:Really? CCP Really!!!!
I've played eve since '04, you know back when the learning curve was so high it was practically a wall.
And i can tell ya... i never had once thought about "These names suck". I thought they were creative... and it really seems like you guy lost alot of that since then.
This is the stupidest idea I've heard in a while... I was alright with the missles... but everything else?? Get with it.
You might aswell rename the game while your at it.... I know!!!! "SpaceShips -- Online!!!"
I got anouther suggestion... rename the Armageddon "The Space Dildo" and the navy issue "The Better Space Dildo"... and then i'll shove it where it belongs... which dev first????
Thanks for getting my blood pressure going!!
Agree
CCP,this is the time to create Experimental Dual Heavy Modulated Pulse Energy EM/Thermal Beam Meta-4 Weapon for Dumbs.
|
TheBlueMonkey
Natural Progression
83
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 09:32:00 -
[528] - Quote
egh, seems needlesly pointless to me
Firstly some meta level mods are preferable over others because of more than just "does more damage\resists"
Also, Things have names, deal with it. Unless we're going to rename ******* to arrogance powder, canabis to lethargy weed etc. |
Daeva Teresa
Viziam Amarr Empire
40
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 09:35:00 -
[529] - Quote
CCP really please dont use Limited, Experimental or Prototype in item names. It sounds like the item is actually worse than basic meta 1 item. Use Calibrated, Enhanced, Optimized and Upgraded. Its easy to understand its better than meta 1 and its also in alphabetic order.
CCP really please dont use Upgraded, Limited, Experimental-áand Prototype in item names. It sounds like the item is actually worse than basic meta 1 item. Use Calibrated, Enhanced, Optimized and Upgraded. Its really easy to understand that the item is better than meta 1 and its also in alphabetic order. |
Tiger's Spirit
Troll Hunters INC.
56
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 09:51:00 -
[530] - Quote
Daeva Teresa wrote:CCP really please dont use Limited, Experimental or Prototype in item names. It sounds like the item is actually worse than basic meta 1 item. Use Calibrated, Enhanced, Optimized and Upgraded. Its easy to understand its better than meta 1 and its also in alphabetic order.
Do not create Experimental or Protoype but create Calibrated, Enchanted and other names ? LOL
Dumb Dumbers Dumbest
Not need name changes. Not need Limited and not need Calibrated or other idiotic names too. |
|
Daeva Teresa
Viziam Amarr Empire
40
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 09:55:00 -
[531] - Quote
Yes we dont need this. New player may find this less confusing. But since CCP is doing this already, they should at least do it right. Trolling over and over again that you dont want something that is already beying implemented wont help anything. CCP really please dont use Upgraded, Limited, Experimental-áand Prototype in item names. It sounds like the item is actually worse than basic meta 1 item. Use Calibrated, Enhanced, Optimized and Upgraded. Its really easy to understand that the item is better than meta 1 and its also in alphabetic order. |
Tiger's Spirit
Troll Hunters INC.
58
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 11:21:00 -
[532] - Quote
Daeva Teresa wrote:New player may find this less confusing.....
Really ? They was confused with old names ? I dont think so.
But they will be confused when they trying to find any modules and they see on interenet other module names on killboards, on the websites which trying to help for newbees with old FAQs etc. This is the first problem with this name changes. This changes would be make more mess to the game.
The second problem is, the old players will be confused too, because they playing with 7-8 years long this game and these player memorized the old module names.
Don't fix what ain't broke.
But why not fix what is broke ? Such a supercaps problems, ship problems like a EW frigs or gallente commandship, lag problems, overview problems, 0.0 problems, Tech moon problems, cloak problems etc. |
Daeva Teresa
Viziam Amarr Empire
40
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 11:32:00 -
[533] - Quote
Its really stupid to repeat myself. But since you didnt get it first time: Yes, we dont need this. But since its already beying implemented, CCP could at least do this right, soo it can last for another next 10 years or so. CCP really please dont use Upgraded, Limited, Experimental-áand Prototype in item names. It sounds like the item is actually worse than basic meta 1 item. Use Calibrated, Enhanced, Optimized and Upgraded. Its really easy to understand that the item is better than meta 1 and its also in alphabetic order. |
Velicitia
Open Designs
734
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 12:09:00 -
[534] - Quote
Daeva Teresa wrote:We dont need this. Hand Gnauton over to Sansha, and rid yourselves of this terribad idea.
Fixed that for you.
Alternatively, force him to play the game and give everyone his location, and a full cargohold of Widowmakers |
Muul Udonii
THORN Syndicate Initiative Mercenaries
26
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 12:10:00 -
[535] - Quote
Sorry to repeat what others have already said; but Light Missile Arrays as a name is daft for 2 reasons:
1) They do not fire light missiles, they fire assault missiles 2) Heavy Assault missiles are fired from a heavy assault launcher, and Assault Missiles are fired from a Light Missile Array. This change actually goes directly against what you are trying to do.
It's almost like one person was responsible for naming the light missiles, and another was responsible for naming the heavy missiles, and they didn't bother talking to each other.
On the other hand, the existing names of most meta items are dumb, it takes a long time to find out if the item you have found is worth keeping or not. So do go ahead with changing stuff, just make sure you do it correctly. Inform 3rd party software developers a LONG time in advance and provide a table of old vs new names so they can easily update their lists.
This is the kind of thing the CSM should get involved with. Just saying. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
268
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 12:30:00 -
[536] - Quote
Muul Udonii wrote:Sorry to repeat what others have already said; but Light Missile Arrays as a name is daft for 2 reasons:
1) They do not fire light missiles, they fire assault missiles 2) Heavy Assault missiles are fired from a heavy assault launcher, and Assault Missiles are fired from a Light Missile Array. This change actually goes directly against what you are trying to do.
It's almost like one person was responsible for naming the light missiles, and another was responsible for naming the heavy missiles, and they didn't bother talking to each other.
On the other hand, the existing names of most meta items are dumb, it takes a long time to find out if the item you have found is worth keeping or not. So do go ahead with changing stuff, just make sure you do it correctly. Inform 3rd party software developers a LONG time in advance and provide a table of old vs new names so they can easily update their lists.
This is the kind of thing the CSM should get involved with. Just saying.
Uh, go to the market. Find me heavy assault missiles. I won't bother waiting, as I have things to do other than wait forever.
Assault Missile Launchers are just light missile launchers that cycle faster. Heavy Assault Missile Launchers fire assault missiles (not heavy assault missiles. which don't exist.)
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Assault_Missile_Launcher_I http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Heavy_Assault_Missile_Launcher_I FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Tamiya Sarossa
Hedion University Amarr Empire
164
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 17:24:00 -
[537] - Quote
Simplicity is cool, but please at least put the old names in the description of items, they were nice flavor. |
The Economist
Logically Consistent
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 17:54:00 -
[538] - Quote
Ok, here we go
Hardwiring implant name changes - excellent. Love it, makes it easier to tell what they do without sacrificing flavour and fixes something which was commonly whined about
Armor/Shield resist module name changes - makes life a bit easier for new players, makes market searches easier for everyone...removes a tiny bit of flavour and requires re-learning a few terms but generally not really bothered, overall prob a good change
Launcher name changes - I can understand the reasoning...personally I find the new names confusing and unneccessary after 8 years. I could live with the change though
Module meta level names - What the f$*& are you thinking? Utterly utterly horrible. You ask if it removes too much flavour from the universe.....how could it not? How many different item names and pre-fixes are there in the database.....and you want to replace ALL of them with 4 words? It was crap enough on the mwd's (not to mention the horrible and utterly unnecessary missile name change which only serves to further remove flavour from the game and more importantly makes me take longer to see which missiles i need from a hangar since all the names are the f%&*$&g same), how on earth do you want to do it everything else? If the main arguements are simplification and helping new players well: a; there are more existing players negatively affected than there are new players to be benefitted, b; simplification for its own sake is needless dumbing down and well....simplification...and c; how about focusing on teaching new players how to show info and compare items if complexity is really the issue? Personally I've learnt vast amounts about the game by studying item infos and comparing attributes. This is not a case of complexity for complexity's sake; this is for the sake of sci-fi flavour, immersion in the game, general differentiation, avoidance of boredom and other feelings i've yet to work out how to elucidate in a sufficiently biased fashion. [insert well thought out arguement about it buggering up existing backstory and game fiction here, not to mention killboards, game guides etc etc here
On further consideration I actually find CCP's view of our mental capacities as implied by their perception of a need for this global name change fairly insulting
I'm trying my best but I don't thinking I can adequately emphasise just how horrific an idea I think the meta name changes are; in any form.
I'm not quibbling over the confusion between the new naming scheme, since prototype and experiemental are the same thing, or that 'limited' makes an item sound worse than t1; but rather vomiting over the whole scheme and the spurious reasoning behind it. I'm sure there are better ways this dev team's time can be used
It's just not necessary
[constructive suggestions: if you want to draw more attention to items meta levels and make it quicker and easier to see then what about just adding an 'm' designation to existing names? i.e. Fleeting M2 Warp Disruptor (not very elegant and I still don't like it, but it's less horrible that the proposal). Or perhaps adding a new info tab to items; 'Meta Level'? not wonderful ideas I know.] |
Shin Dari
The Vendunari Warped Aggression
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:09:00 -
[539] - Quote
The Assault Missile Launcher dilemma is quite annoying, in fact one can say that its existence isn't even consistent, its the odd man out of all the launchers. If possible I would recommend to have it replaced by a skill book, something like Advanced Rapid Launch, Light Missile Rapid Launch or Light Rapid Launch.
@The Economist How can you take longer to see which missiles you need from a hangar?! In my experience it is going a lot faster. |
The Economist
Logically Consistent
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:20:00 -
[540] - Quote
Shin Dari wrote:
The Assault Missile Launcher dilemma is quite annoying, in fact one can say that its existence isn't even consistent, its the odd man out of all the launchers. If possible I would recommend to have it replaced by a skill book, something like Advanced Rapid Launch, Light Missile Rapid Launch or Light Rapid Launch.
@The Economist How can you take longer to see which missiles you need from a hangar?! In my experience it is going a lot faster.
They all have the same names.
|
|
Gibbo3771
AQUILA INC 0ccupational Hazzard
51
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:36:00 -
[541] - Quote
This will just make the game boring, current names are fine imo.
I for one find a fitting more eye catching and creative like this:
[Harpy, Yay] Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Micro Auxiliary Power Core I
1MN Afterburner II J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I X5 Prototype Engine Enervator Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Light Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Light Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Light Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Light Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S [empty high slot]
Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Small Hybrid Burst Aerator I
Rather than this
[Harpy, Yay] Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Micro Auxiliary Power Core I
1MN Afterburner II Experimental Warp Scrambler Experimental Stasis Webifier Prototype Medium Shield Extender
Light Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Light Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Light Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Light Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S [empty high slot]
Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Small Hybrid Burst Aerator I
Iunno, just it doesent look as dynamic and creative
Everytime you dont like my comments/posts the terrorists win and your a disgrace to your country. |
Suboran
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:51:00 -
[542] - Quote
The onlything that needs or needed changin namewise was implants, and only to reflect something on what the implant actually does
Did one of your guys even type in trauma into the market? Its a trauma for the eyes and brain. |
Shin Dari
The Vendunari Warped Aggression
34
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:53:00 -
[543] - Quote
The Economist wrote:Shin Dari wrote:
The Assault Missile Launcher dilemma is quite annoying, in fact one can say that its existence isn't even consistent, its the odd man out of all the launchers. If possible I would recommend to have it replaced by a skill book, something like Advanced Rapid Launch, Light Missile Rapid Launch or Light Rapid Launch.
@The Economist How can you take longer to see which missiles you need from a hangar?! In my experience it is going a lot faster.
They all have the same names. Another example being speed module names; previously it was easy to see how many mwd's/ab's i had in a hangar and at what meta level. Now I glance at a hangar and all I see is "Experimental 100mn" "Experimental 100mn" "Prototype 10mn" "Prototype 10mn". With the old naming system I would see "quad lif" "lif" "y-t" "y-s8" etc as the start of the names allowing me to instantly tell which were ab's and mwd's, now I can't. That's aside from the fact that the new names don't make sense to me....is prototype better than experiemental? I don't know. Of course, I can see as soon as I look at the show info window (which was always the case anyway) but the idea is that the naming simplification makes things easier and more intuitive, so far, in my experience, it's the opposite. Strange, I had the opposite experience. The old names were so technobabble for me that I had trouble finding the stuff fast. And with the new names I see it immediately, the same thing was true with ammo.
Quote:Also another point I don't think I went over sufficiently; the current naming system encourages people to actually read module infos, do their own comparison and generally put themselves in positions to actually learn more about the game and thereby deepen their experience. Over-simplification encourages mental auto-pilot, compexity encourages immersion and education. Well I do like immersion, but I would encourage it in a different way. To give each module a small part of its old name and to have a small description story at the module info.
|
Lathaniel
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:14:00 -
[544] - Quote
if you change the target painters im gonna be ++ber sad and im gonna have to camp at ccp hq with signs and be emo and stuff |
Kamuria
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:20:00 -
[545] - Quote
welcomed changes, however only 2 minor detail bother me.
Ligh missile arrays, I just don't like the word array, maybe it's because i'm a programmer and when I see this word it reminds me of ancient programming.
The % on the implants won't reveal the cost of the item, I'd prefer a value that refers to the costs or required skill.
You can get an item with 5% gain that is cheap and costs 100k and another type of implant with 5% that costs 150millions... so the % doesn't tell me anything on the value of the item at first glance and without the market value, the % is meaningless. Sure you can see it's 5% gain, but if you look on the market and find out there's an implant with 15% gain, you won't be interested to read 5% on this unknown item... you want to read a value that tells you the potential value of the item... |
Ibeau Renoir
Colonial Fleet Services Independent Faction
22
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:56:00 -
[546] - Quote
Thread is tl;dr, so here are my comments...
First, I approve of the project on an abstract level. Just the different types of guns are confusing to me, specifically lasers. How can a focused medium beam laser be afocal? Why does the meta 4 heavy pulse laser have the word "beam" in its name when it's not a beam laser? I'm glad to see it'll now be a Prototype Heavy Pulse Laser instead.
Oh wait, turrets aren't in your list of changes. Oh well.
However, as others have noted, the choice of meta-words is rather odd and the name for each level doesn't give the impression of being better than the last. Forgivable from a team made up mostly of non-native English speakers perhaps, but it needs addressing.
Here's my random suggestion:
- Upgraded (Better than standard, but well understood and stable)
- Improved (Going a bit beyond the ordinary)
- Advanced (Typically the best you can find)
- Experimental (Really pushing the boundaries of what's possible without morphite)
Drop "limited". It makes things sounds worse than the standard.
"Skill" hardwiring implants definitely need this change. I have some quibbles though (and they are quibbles, not major objections). The letters are changing to be rather less flavourful. Here's what I have plugged into my head at the moment:
- Hardwiring - Inherent Implants 'Squire' PG4
- Hardwiring - Eifyr and Co. 'Rogue' AY-1
Now although they are called "skill hardwiring" implants, they really have nothing to do with skills. For example there is an implant to increase warp speed, and one to decrease signature radius, but no skills to do those things. What you can say is that where there is some skill that improves the same thing as the implant, that skill is in the name. So the implants above become Inherent Implants 'Squire' Engineering PG-603 and Eifyr and Co. 'Rogue' Evasive Maneuvering AY-703. Which make sense.
Except, wait! You didn't call them PG-603 and AY-703, you called them EG-603 and EM-703. Why did you do that? It's not a "flavour acronym", which would imply something interesting but ultimately meaningless, it's just redundant functionality. Why did Eifyr and Co. use "AY" instead of "MP"? Who knows? That's what they chose to call it. On the other hand CCP called it "MP" and we know why: because it's logical, i.e. it stands for "Motion Prediction". But you already added "Motion Prediction" to the name so why add an abbreviation too?
Shield hardeners and resistance amplifiers. "Ward field" sounds weird. I suggest "scattering field" instead, in line with the current T1 and T2 versions instead of various meta-versions.
Missile launchers. As others have noted, "light missile array" is a travesty. It's a launcher, so it should have the word "launcher" in its name. Why not "Light Missile Launcher Array" or more menacingly, "Light Missile Launcher Battery"? Or go one better and call it a "Gatling Light Missile Launcher". Make its model (when launchers finally get models) look like several light missile launchers strapped together. Other changes I approve of. I do however echo the general sentiment that "Trauma" is a poor choice of type-word for kinetic missiles. "Scourge" would have been better, calling to mind a nasty whip that wounds because its tip travels at supersonic speeds. "Trauma" is abstract and generic and doesn't really call kinetic damage to mind.
Scripts. I approve. "Tracking Speed" sounds like a tracking computer, not a tracking computer script. Ceci n'est pas un sig. |
The Economist
Logically Consistent
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:57:00 -
[547] - Quote
If it hasn't already been considered as an option for meta name changes...
What about just adding a tag to meta level modules?
I'm picturing a t2 style corner tag on the icons in a different colour with m1-4 on it.
Quick, visual, keeps all the flavour of the old names we've come to know and love and easier to implement (I'm guessing, could be completely wrong on this).
Main thing that springs to mind that this wouldn't do however, is allow for quicker market searching in the same way that the proposed name changes would. |
Luvvin McHunt
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:50:00 -
[548] - Quote
Steijn wrote:Anja Talis wrote:I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of veterans suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced veterans who CCP know they have a bit of leeway with in been able to p*** them off as they are already 'caught' by the Eve bug. To me, things like this are just something that the person who thought them up is doing, in order to jusify having a job.
There is a point where they can even upset the vets to the point of quitting.
If the Drake is ever nerfed - They will lose 4 paying accounts I know of. Some people dedicate all skill training time to fly a certain ship. So when a nerf comes they have wasted 2-3 months, $40-45 of subscription time - possibly much more. When game time and therefore skill training costs money - you can't mess with peoples stuff. |
Bad Messenger
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
116
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:23:00 -
[549] - Quote
so 1st you have to invent new names for missiles, but then you name hardeners by damage type.
Why not name missiles too by damage type?
You want to make thing simpler but still you have to make complex missile names |
tasman devil
Pangalactic Punks n' Playboys HUN Reloaded
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 09:50:00 -
[550] - Quote
I approve this! ;- ) |
|
|
CCP Gnauton
C C P C C P Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:16:00 -
[551] - Quote
Alright guys, short update:
Missile Launchers:
For starters, there seems to be quite a bit of confusion regarding the capabilities of assault launchers vs. heavy assault launchers. To be clear, the modules formerly known as Assault Launchers (now called Rapid Light Missile Launchers) are not capable of firing Assault Missiles. Instead, they fire Light Missiles at an accelerated rate of fire (something which the new name hopefully reflects.) The Heavy Assault Missile Launchers are the only module group in the game capable of firing assault missiles. Similarly, there are not two classes of Assault Missile in the game; there is only one, which confusingly enough has been referred to interchangeably as either Assault Missiles or Heavy Assault Missiles.
We've come to the conclusion that just the renaming of Assault Launchers to Rapid Light Missile Launchers is sufficient to remove this confusion. There is now no suggestion that the Rapid Launcher fires Assault Missiles. Therefore, since there is now only one Assault Launcher in the game, it's probably best to allow it to retain its earlier name to avoid the confusion that would otherwise ensue. Therefore, according to the new scheme, Assault Launchers are now Rapid Light Missile Launchers, and Heavy Assault Launchers will retain their name.
Missiles:
67 instances of Trauma missiles and blueprints have been renamed to Scourge missiles and blueprints.
The Meta scheme:
The meta scheme is currently under heavy revision and review. I'll hopefully have something more to report shortly. Please keep the feedback coming; this is the area where your comments have been the most helpful so far.
For the tl;dr latecomer crowd that perhaps didn't see my earlier reply, please find it here. |
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3387
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:45:00 -
[552] - Quote
Awsome! Keep up the good work!
|
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:58:00 -
[553] - Quote
For the Meta scheme, I would hope you would keep as much as the flavor as now, and just make what the module does part consistent, then add a designator to show meta and tech and maybe primary bonus.
So for example, currently we have:
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Then it would change it to:
Fleeting Propulsion Webifier 1W460
This would have all webs called Webifier or whatever name that sounds best to call all webs, The I is for tech one, the W is for webs, the 4 is for meta 4, and the 60 is for the main defining ability or bonus of the module, in this case a 60% reduction is velocity.
Once familiar with this scheme it would be easy to search for Webifier IW4 and get this item even if you didn't remember the bonus amount or the flavor name.
The W for the in the designator should match the first letter of the basic module name this case Webifier.
So broken down.
"Flavor Name" "Module Group Name/Type" "Tech # or Roman # for Tech" "1st Letter of Module Group Name/Type" "Meta level #" "Number for primary effect of the module"
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3387
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 16:03:00 -
[554] - Quote
Kethry Avenger wrote:For the Meta scheme, I would hope you would keep as much as the flavor as now, and just make what the module does part consistent, then add a designator to show meta and tech and maybe primary bonus.
So for example, currently we have:
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Then it would change it to:
Fleeting Propulsion Webifier 1W460
This would have all webs called Webifier or whatever name that sounds best to call all webs, The I is for tech one, the W is for webs, the 4 is for meta 4, and the 60 is for the main defining ability or bonus of the module, in this case a 60% reduction is velocity.
Once familiar with this scheme it would be easy to search for Webifier IW4 and get this item even if you didn't remember the bonus amount or the flavor name.
The W for the in the designator should match the first letter of the basic module name this case Webifier.
So broken down.
"Flavor Name" "Module Group Name/Type" "Tech # or Roman # for Tech" "1st Letter of Module Group Name/Type" "Meta level #" "Number for primary effect of the module"
Not a viable option not everyone uses performance as a meta indicator and multiple modules train up and down along DOZENS of attributes.
|
Heathkit
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 16:56:00 -
[555] - Quote
You could retain flavor by varying the labels you use for meta level. Instead of one set of labels for everything, there could be a set of consistent meta level indicators inspired by each faction. So missile related stuff, which is associated with caldari, get's caldari-ish labels for meta level (ie, letters and numbers), while laser stuff is religous themed, projectile is violence/freedom themed, etc. |
Axl Borlara
T.R.I.A.D
28
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 17:09:00 -
[556] - Quote
CCP Gnauton wrote: Assault Launchers (now called Rapid Light Missile Launchers) 67 instances of Trauma missiles and blueprints have been renamed to Scourge missiles and blueprints.
Those two changes, along with the implant changes, are great and go a long way to dealing with real and perceived problems. That just leaves the Meta scheme and maybe renaming some of the more oddly named modules.
Well done so far!
|
The Economist
Logically Consistent
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:25:00 -
[557] - Quote
CCP Gnauton wrote:Alright guys, short update:
Missile Launchers:
Therefore, according to the new scheme, Assault Launchers are now Rapid Light Missile Launchers, and Heavy Assault Launchers will retain their name.
Nice, makes sense.
CCP Gnauton wrote:Missiles:
67 instances of Trauma missiles and blueprints have been renamed to Scourge missiles and blueprints.
A pyrrhic victory but still nice.
CCP Gnauton wrote:The Meta scheme:The meta scheme is currently under heavy revision and review. I'll hopefully have something more to report shortly. Please keep the feedback coming; this is the area where your comments have been the most helpful so far. For the tl;dr latecomer crowd that perhaps didn't see my earlier reply, please find it here.
Whoops missed the earlier reply, thanks.
Granted I'm of the 'no name changes at all' persuasion.......but the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of simply adding a corner tag to icons showing meta level; low cost, high impact, fits with the current system of displaying an items quality level (faction, deadspace, t2) and retains all the flavour of the existing names. It solves the problem of changing names by avoiding it completely while providing at least some of the desired results in an instantly intuitive fashion with no adaptation to new terminology necessary.
An alternative idea that keeps cropping up in various forms (among the crowd that think that changing all names to 4 is too much) is to modify the existing names with some sort of alphanumeric add-on to indicate the meta level; however it seems overly cumbersome to me and a bit aesthetically displeasing, with already long names becoming longer and more un-wieldy.
Energy turret meta names always confused the crap out of me though. |
Danny Husk
EVE University Ivy League
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 04:09:00 -
[558] - Quote
Quote:Therefore, according to the new scheme, Assault Launchers are now Rapid Light Missile Launchers, and Heavy Assault Launchers will retain their name. Still think you would get soooo much more mileage out of this plan if you went with HAML -> Heavy ROCKET Launcher and Rocket Launcher -> Light Rocket Launcher. It will make the whole scheme about 100% less confusing for everyone, and I don't think anyone would actually hate it.
Also, one more plug for the problem that "Rapid Light Missile Launcher" is going to lead to literally endless confusion when noobs try to fit four of them on a Kestrel; because it sounds like its just a "better" Light Missile Launcher. You really need something more distinctive for this to reflect that it's a cruiser weapon composed of ganged frigate launchers, like the "Dual 180mm AC" thing that you do with guns. For example:
[Dual | Quad | Blitz] Rapid-Fire Light Missle Battery
Something anyway. Just tacking on the adjective "Rapid" does not suggest at all that this is a whole other bird from Light Missile Launcher. |
Danny Husk
EVE University Ivy League
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 04:12:00 -
[559] - Quote
Quote:67 instances of Trauma missiles and blueprints have been renamed to Scourge missiles and blueprints. Missile users of New Eden thank you. Really. You guys are good. |
ImagingBreakerLV0
Nordic Innovations BLACK-MARK
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 10:02:00 -
[560] - Quote
IMO the missile name change is already stuipid Each missile type is so different with each other. why would a rocket and cruise missile share the same name just because they do same kind of dmg? the missiles had back story with them too. IIRC scrouge heavy was invented by gallente or something Are we naming RPG and toma hawk "Nova rocket" and "Nova Cruise Missile" because they both do explotion dmg? |
|
Neurotic Cat
Helping Hand Acceptance Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 22:26:00 -
[561] - Quote
No name changes!
Changing the names to "simplify" things is just another instance of dumbing down this game. Please stop.
|
Anja Talis
Mimidae Risk Solutions
49
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 23:23:00 -
[562] - Quote
CCP Gnauton wrote:Alright guys, short update: Missiles: 67 instances of Trauma missiles and blueprints have been renamed to Scourge missiles and blueprints.
*does a dance*
Shame we aren't getting the colourful names back, but this will do :DDDD
|
Amsterdam Conversations
Cheesecake Starshine
90
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 11:57:00 -
[563] - Quote
ImagingBreakerLV0 wrote:IMO the missile name change is already stuipid Each missile type is so different with each other. why would a rocket and cruise missile share the same name just because they do same kind of dmg? the missiles had back story with them too. IIRC scrouge heavy was invented by gallente or something Are we naming RPG and toma hawk "Nova rocket" and "Nova Cruise Missile" because they both do explotion dmg? :facepalm: |
Alistair Cononach
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
161
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 14:41:00 -
[564] - Quote
I still prefer
1. Light Missiles (Fired from Light Missile Launchers) 2. Light Missiles (Fired from Light Missile Battery) - Formerly Assault Missile Launcher 3. Heavy Missiles (Fired from Heavy Missile Launchers) 4. Cruise Missiles (Fired from Cruise Missile Launchers)
5. Light Rockets (Fired from Light Rocket Launchers) 6. Heavy Rockets (Fired from Heavy Rocket Launchers) - Formerly HAM's 7. Torpedoes (Fired from Torpedo Launchers)
Clear cut difference between the "Guided" Missiles and the "Unguided" Rockets/Torps.
Light = Frigate Heavy = Cruiser/BC Cruise/Torp = B
The odd launcher out gets "Battery" instead of "Launcher" to indicate it's faster rate of fire, but still clearly indicates what it fires (Light Missiles).
Retains most of the existing flavor, sacrificing only the needlessly extra word "assault" but keeping the "rockets". |
NUXI7
B0rthole Test Alliance Please Ignore
94
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 18:00:00 -
[565] - Quote
As part of this naming change, will you please fix the spelling of Mackinaw? The proper spelling of the word is Mackinac. Only illterates spell it phonetically with the w on the end. |
NUXI7
B0rthole Test Alliance Please Ignore
95
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 18:19:00 -
[566] - Quote
Oh and before I forget, you missed the FoF missiles when they were all renamed for damage types. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
292
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 18:26:00 -
[567] - Quote
NUXI7 wrote:As part of this naming change, will you please fix the spelling of Mackinaw? The proper spelling of the word is Mackinac. Only illterates spell it phonetically with the w on the end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackinaw_boat
Welcome to the wonderful world of English spelling.
Perhaps I should rant about people who miss out u's in words such as colour, and honour? FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
NUXI7
B0rthole Test Alliance Please Ignore
95
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 18:33:00 -
[568] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:NUXI7 wrote:As part of this naming change, will you please fix the spelling of Mackinaw? The proper spelling of the word is Mackinac. Only illterates spell it phonetically with the w on the end. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackinaw_boat
Oh I'm well aware that people misspell it constantly. They didn't even get the city named correctly despite a Fort already existing there with it spelled correctly. At least they manage to spell it correctly when they named the bridge...
|
Aurelius Valentius
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 06:04:00 -
[569] - Quote
How about we just start with better info in the descriptions - they lack greatly any information - why not keep the names, and just put this info into that space and see how that goes?
Just my two ISKies on this. ...and Pinning/Toggle must be restored (paraphrase of Cicero). |
Szilardis
Phoibe Enterprises
22
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 18:02:00 -
[570] - Quote
The new resist mod naming scheme sucks. I suppose stating the damage type isn't too bad, but you did what everyone complained about and took the flavor out of them too... |
|
Immortis Vexx
Lupus Draconis Dragehund
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 19:40:00 -
[571] - Quote
I am generally in the boat with the rest of the "omg dont dumb down my module names" group but for a completely different reason. First off, I am good with updating some names and changing things but I also think that what you have chosen is a bit too simplistic. Lets look at the modern brand names of very popular items of which we have a large variety to choose from; in this case, cell phones. Currently i am using an HTC android device running version 2.3.4. Many people have just signed up to buy the Apple iPhone 4s. Then we have the Nokia Lumia running windows platform.The point that I am trying to make here is that we have a wide variety of phones (and knockoffs) and we are generally able to figure out who has what and what kind of stuffs we got running under the hood.
Instead of using "experimental" or "improved" why can't we use the corporations to denote what kind of quality a product is? EVE has TONS of npc corporations that could be used in this fashion. Granted, this would be a total re-work of the meta level system and I don't know that it would be feasible. However, then you could have the corporations provide the various bonuses. "The Ishukone version of the afterburner slightly sacrifices speed, but greatly reduces the CPU usage of the module."
Personally I would like to see the corporations influence more than just who I have standings with, just my two cents though.
Vexx |
Sovai Elaaren
Korriban Confederation
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 00:20:00 -
[572] - Quote
CCP Gnauton wrote:The Meta scheme:
The meta scheme is currently under heavy revision and review. I'll hopefully have something more to report shortly. Please keep the feedback coming; this is the area where your comments have been the most helpful so far.
I'm very glad that you're listening to our feedback, but it's very unfortunate that a change is under heavy review but was implemented anyway (at least in part). Only thing more confusing for players that recently started is having the naming scheme change not once but possibly twice.
At any rate, I'm looking forward to hearing more from you guys on this. |
Hyperion O'Coeus
Null n Void Voice of Void Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 02:38:00 -
[573] - Quote
I don't care about UI Designers. You need to stop making changes to all the names this is stupid and a waste of time. When ever you switch departments or have Designers change departments there is a learning curve. Instead your changing he names for the designers which is causing quite a stir with the gamers. And here I thought the game was for us NOT designers.
You need to stop making name changes, before you provoke a mass exodus. I just spent 48 minutes fitting a ship because you changed names and I had to review all the info. In addition your not telling us in advance or in the patch notes what has been changed to what ...
Old Name = New name
It doesn't make any sense to change Invulnerability Field 1 to Adaptive Invulnerability Field I ... what the hell is the point of that?
You really to need to have more of a conversation with the gamers / users before going forward with the changes. |
Siren mu
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 04:14:00 -
[574] - Quote
GOOD!!! now I feel like a freaking armor tanker every time I look at that adaptive invul field II ... Please stop the useless name change all together Most of the new names aren't even remotely more friendly to new players, and they really just suck. |
Siren mu
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 04:28:00 -
[575] - Quote
And you don't even have an ACTIVE armor hardening module that boosts the overall resistance of ships' armor in the first place... JUST WHY IN THE WORLD should you name an ACTIVE shield hardener "adaptive invulnerability field" ??????? |
Diamonica Norya
University of Caille Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 05:26:00 -
[576] - Quote
Sorry I'm late but my EvE just gotten Dumber as of today~~
Dumberer tomorrow
That's not very respective of the playerbase when you had this many complaints made about the new scheme and yet you still go ahead. CCP Cares |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 20:17:00 -
[577] - Quote
I want my missiles back!!!
CCP: "All these flavours are too confusing for some of the more stupid players (and devs) so everybody needs to gulp down a bottle of bleach, hmmkay?" |
Shade Millith
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 22:45:00 -
[578] - Quote
Quote:Adaptive Invulnerability Field
This doesn't even make SENSE. This isn't an armor mod, and there's nothing confusing about 'Invulnerability Field's', and slapping 'Adaptive' just sounds off.
This is exactly like your attempts to change HAM's. Random, unnecessary name changes for a tiny problem. One that has nothing to do with several of the names you're changing.
Just put down the keyboard and stop changing things for the sake of changing.
What's next? 'Adaptive Damage Control'?
EDIT:
Quote:Explosion Dampening Field -> Explosive Deflection Field
This. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're going through the game, and randomly changing mod names for absolutely no reason.
What are you doing?
Stop changing for the sake of changing. |
Cindy Marco
Expanse Security
60
|
Posted - 2012.03.15 02:39:00 -
[579] - Quote
CCP Gnauton wrote:That being said, it's apparent from the tone and tenor of your dissent that we have quite a few things to reconsider here. After monitoring this thread closely since yesterday and convening this afternoon, we've decided on a few things.
So this was just an empty promise since they went live anyway?
You could at least of told us you just don't care what we think. At least that would have been honest. |
Gallus Niggus
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.15 08:59:00 -
[580] - Quote
LMAO the new mod names are terrible good job Gnauton
edit: yeah i can see why there weren't in the patc hnotes |
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
303
|
Posted - 2012.03.15 13:43:00 -
[581] - Quote
Looks like some changes happened in the Static Data Dump, which haven't made it through to the live?
Still Trauma on EVE, but Scourge in the SDD, for example?
Is there going to be a corrected SDD, or will EVE be updated soon? FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Caladan Rake
Redemptions Manifesto SpaceMonkey's Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 00:27:00 -
[582] - Quote
The fact that these changes were just pushed through despite you guys supposedly putting them on review, is really depressing. Why do you not listen to the players? Can you at least explain it?
Would go some ways to putting some faith back into the community.
Not that I expect to hear anything though. This is an ignored thread now. |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
678
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 00:34:00 -
[583] - Quote
Caladan Rake wrote:The fact that these changes were just pushed through despite you guys supposedly putting them on review, is really depressing. Why do you not listen to the players? Can you at least explain it?
Would go some ways to putting some faith back into the community.
Not that I expect to hear anything though. This is an ignored thread now.
The development process going from requirement gathering, to change definition, to coding, testing, and deployment is a distressingly long one. My guess is that this thread changed the requirements when the process was already in the coding or testing stage -- something that either results in the whole thing being scrapped and developer time being wasted, or an inadequate product being delivered.
In this case, they opted to deliver a half-assed solution rather than having no change at all. I'm not sure why, since it just causes more trouble for 3rd party developers, but they did.
At least, as a software developer, that's the rationale I think is behind it. Rifterlings - Small gang lowsec combat corp specializing in frigates and cruisers (all races, not just Rifters!). US Timezone veterans and newbies alike are welcome to join. Come chat in the "we fly rifters" in-game channel. Free fitted frigates for members! |
ORCACommander
Astral Synthetics
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 03:39:00 -
[584] - Quote
fix my ******* module names now
|
Nikolai Vodkov
Pro Synergy
24
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 17:46:00 -
[585] - Quote
After 7 years of playing this game.. I finally started to get used to and get the hang of most of the crazy item names you guys came up with... AND JUST AS I THOUGHT: "Wow... I can finally understand EVE".... *BAAAAMMMM* New names on everything! FU!!!!!!!! But seriously though, I like the general changes although more flavor in certain places would be good. Maybe Meta 1-4 names for each faction. Anyway too late for that so good job :) Run level 4 missions? Double your profits!Let us loot your missions and give you 45% of it's value.Join channel: "Pro Synergy" to find out more. |
Benteen
Drone A.I. Servicing Inc.
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 20:49:00 -
[586] - Quote
Palovana wrote:All this but you're not fixing the "Trauma"?
You're already changing the hardener names to match damage type so do this:
Trauma Light Missile => Kinetic 'Bloodclaw' Light Missile Mjolnir Rocket => EM 'Gremlin' Rocket etc.
great sugestion but maybe use the words in a slightly different order...
for example "Bloodclaw" Kinetic light missile or "Scourge" Kinetic heavy missile |
Jethro Campbell
Taggart Transdimensional Virtue of Selfishness
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.17 03:14:00 -
[587] - Quote
I approve of dumbing down unimportant stuff like item names.
I want to see more newbs stay in the game longer for me to abuse.
Newb tears taste great.
And station traders spreadsheet-warrior tears are also pretty good. |
TheWarpGhost
1st Steps Academy Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.17 12:35:00 -
[588] - Quote
Sign me up as someone who's happy to see some sanity injected into various aspects of the game, naming included. The fact that people are complaining because their ~7 years~ of effort trying to learn the old system pretty much shows how terrible the previous conventions were. |
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
73
|
Posted - 2012.03.17 14:48:00 -
[589] - Quote
The amount of bitching in this thread is unbelievable... Why would people want obscure names for modules and rant when CCP try doing something about it... HTFU you bittervet ******* and move the **** on! |
Buzzmong
Aliastra Gallente Federation
162
|
Posted - 2012.03.18 17:53:00 -
[590] - Quote
So, I just looked through one of my containers at armour modules.
The change to the second part of the name: ie, Reactive plating being changed to Explosive doesn't make any difference, but the first part, the removal of the actual names in favour of this new unified system?
Be damned if I know what plating is better or worse now at a glance. Before I could look at my active hardeners and know that N-Type are the meta 4 straight away, now? Not a sausage.
If anything, I'm now spending MORE time doing Show Info's so I can look up the meta level of the object.
It's like the Icon change all over again, despite the aim of improved usability, they're actually much worse in reality.
Please CCP, as per the icons, revert the name changes or at least, only prefix the items with the new naming convention and keep their previous names inside the string before stating what the type is, ie: "Upgraded 'N-Type' Explosive Hardener", "Limited 'Radioisotope' EM Hardener". |
|
NorthCrossroad
EVE University Ivy League
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.19 13:55:00 -
[591] - Quote
So many tears... so many long tears.
So I'll be short - CCP, you did a very job on the naming! Thanks a lot. |
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
62
|
Posted - 2012.03.19 22:45:00 -
[592] - Quote
Good to have it resolved, haters will be haters.
Next thing you know people will be complaining about POS blocks, compared with calculating 7 different fuels. Or whatever other archaic problem that was changed recently.
Only suggestion I would have is make sure the name is cool. I think scourge is better sounding then trauma. |
Akrasjel Lanate
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
655
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 08:26:00 -
[593] - Quote
Change of those name has no sense. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
24
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 12:31:00 -
[594] - Quote
Nikolai Vodkov wrote:After 7 years of playing this game.. I finally started to get used to and get the hang of most of the crazy item names you guys came up with...
I too, think new players should have to spend 7 f*cking YEARS to learn the names of the modules in EvE. |
Lukas Rox
Torchwood Archive
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 13:02:00 -
[595] - Quote
Palovana wrote:All this but you're not fixing the "Trauma"?
You're already changing the hardener names to match damage type so do this:
Trauma Light Missile => Kinetic 'Bloodclaw' Light Missile Mjolnir Rocket => EM 'Gremlin' Rocket etc.
I can't find the words to say how simple and ellegant solution this is. Please dear CCP, this is both simple and preserves the flavour of EVE - please consider this as the naming scheme for missiles.
Trauma is only getting us trauma here...
|
Knalldari Testpilot
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 09:19:00 -
[596] - Quote
Djakku wrote:this just makes the game more boring and less- sci fi... this! |
Elder Thorn
Ghosts of War
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 13:44:00 -
[597] - Quote
stop this bullshit... another rename for missiles today? Fine, but then i want all kinetics to be named Terror, not Scourge, Scourge sucks... blablabla
I don't like the new names, but ok, i'll deal with it. But what i hate is, that missiles are getting renamed again... pick one, stay with that, there will always be people who won't like the new name (for example, i don't even like the name Gnauton, so i'd guess most of the names that guy picks won't be in my favour), but srsly, do not rename stuff every few weeks, thats annoying.
|
Debir Achen
EVE University Ivy League
19
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 05:32:00 -
[598] - Quote
Belated, but I still think the missile names have the wrong fix.
Grab your raven and head out into a combat situation. Now right click on your launchers and find the missile that does EM damage, which is of course the one with EM in the name, right? No. It's Mjolnir (why Mjolnir? I think it goes from EM -> lightning -> lightning god's hammer). Just think how much easier it would be if the name actually said "EM". We've now gone from two dozen unintuitive mappings to just 4, but why didn't we go from two dozen unintuitive mappings to a unified intuitive mapping plus flavour text?
Next on the re-work should be laser and hybrid ammo. It's all very well to have 9 or so increments all the way from +60% to -50% and similar scaling damage, but I can only remember 3 or 4, so most ammo types go unused. And don't get me started on projectile ammo! Simply inserting the range or damage modifier (and damage type for projectiles) into the name would make a big difference.
If laser and hybrid ammo needs to have a use for the multiple types, adding a tracking modifier to some types would allow differentiation while keeping the single damage type. Eg: a single mid-range ammo could come in a standard variant and a variant that reduces the damage multiplier for more tracking (or vice versa). |
Rimase
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
13
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 20:30:00 -
[599] - Quote
This is good. All good. All is good here.
I still did prefer Trauma Missiles. (Why CCP no improve Shareholding?):--áCome on, CCP. Make EVE really ******* interesting: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=71032#post71032 |
GavinCapacitor
CaeIum Incognitum
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 06:05:00 -
[600] - Quote
I am all for usability and whatnot (like the session change timer actually showing the time left, rather than just spinning. So fancy!) but I genuinely dislike this.
There was such wonder when I started playing - finding a module that I might use, comparing it, learning all the names. This just sort of ***** all over that. Not to mention the same 4 adjectives are over the *everything*. Not even different adjectives for missile launchers and armor repairers or [the two most dissimilar things you can imagine].
There have been a lot of changes since I started, but honestly nothing that I disliked this much aside from the pay to win / Incarna fiasco.
Don't really know what to say other than for what its worth, I really, really, don't want this.
Wouldn't it be easier to just add a tag at the end of names with the meta level that you could toggle on and off ? Anything to keep the original names. |
|
Mars Theran
EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance
135
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 10:22:00 -
[601] - Quote
I think the only thing wrong with the original names was an inconsistency in some of the naming conventions that made it hard to see at a glance what meta level they were. Honestly, the only thing I recall ever having trouble with was the implants. The rest of the items I just redundantly clarified with show info even though I knew what they were, with a few exceptions.
For the guy asking about the 'I's in the meta names, that was actually to define them as 'real' meta items as opposed to fake useless ones that don't have 'I's.
I don't know why it is so hard to come up with a reasonable naming scheme for these items now, and myself think it shoulsd be mostly easy. I'm not one that thinks we must stay with the old names though I will miss some of them. They added flavor; something that generic doesn't do.
Meta I - Improved (Slight improvement over original) Meta II - Experimental (Experimental changes to original or Improved version of original) Meta III - Prototype (Testing phase for design changes as determined by stable experimental model) Meta IV - Advanced (Improved production model of Prototype) Meta V - Tech 2 (Next level of technology arrived at after or during production of the advanced version, but much easier to mass produce and cheaper to build)
That might help sort out Experimental and Prototype, but I didn't really stick with the CCP naming convention as it didn't feel right to me.
I agree with the Rapid Light Missile Launcher too btw. Light Missile Array doesn't do it. Turn WiS into wIN! ..make all the characters Nude. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: [one page] |