These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Lasers. Names. Changes. Please read before reaching for your weapons.

First post
Author
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#241 - 2012-08-21 23:03:37 UTC
Lasers definately need some cleaning up. Having a turret named "Medium" in the small category has bugged me for ages. However, I don't want to see everything in the game pared down to the same set of descriptors. Every module, I can take. It's convenient, especially for prop mods and ewar modules. Weapons, on the other hand, deserve a bit more flavor. Combat pilots are tied to their guns; if you're going to sacrifice usability for immersion, weapons is where to do it.

Keep the same idea meta-desriptors, just reflavor it to the gun type. It's still a straightforward system, and helps differentiate racial styles, which is something we should try hard to maintain. For example:

Dual Light Pulse Laser I
Dual Optimized LP I
Dual Modulated LP I
Dual High Intensity LP I
Dual Overcharged LP I

This keeps the Amarr style of high-tech and precision in the naming, with clearly identifiable increases in power with just a little common sense. It should be obvious to most everyone that "high intensity" is a more powerful thing then "optimized", just from the word alone. It also keeps the turrets self-sorting by class in lists and market, because each class always starts with the same indicator (in this case, dual).

For comparison, I'll throw a minmatar linup in too.

150mm Autocannon
150mm Repeating Autocannon
150mm Mechanized Autocannon
150mm Overpressured Autocannon
150mm Magnum Autocannon

Again, by the tone of the words, it should be clear to most which ones are more powerful. Also, it shoes the minmatar improving power not by refining technology, but by simply throwing more stuff into gun and pushing it harder. This small bit of flavor is great thing, and will help pilots identify with their racial styles and prevent New Eden from turning into a bland place.
Grideris
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#242 - 2012-08-22 00:04:45 UTC
Denidil wrote:
Sudelle wrote:
Denidil wrote:


as i pointed out previously - those are just affecting how efficiently your lasers are converting the input energy into output energy.



She doesn't like it. So what? Let it go... I'm not getting upset that she didn't even really comment on my religious naming convention for the lasers (although I want to - lol) Personally I think the kW or GW with a number is extremely sterile myself.


she doesn't like it BECAUSE SHE FAILED PHYSICS CLASS.

(i'm kidding of course.. but she is making a physics error)


I might just point out at this moment that "She" is actually a he...

http://www.dust514.org - the unofficial forum for everything DUST 514 http://www.dust514base.com -** the** blog site with everything else DUST 514 you need

Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#243 - 2012-08-22 10:33:08 UTC
I like your update still keeping some variation uniqueness in the names.

I have been a little concerned for a while about the whole limited, experimental etc naming convention being applied to everything. Kind of felt you were only a few steps away from naming things +1 Gatling Laser, +2 Gatling Laser etc.
CCP FoxFour
C C P
C C P Alliance
#244 - 2012-08-22 10:41:56 UTC
Grideris wrote:
Denidil wrote:
Sudelle wrote:
Denidil wrote:


as i pointed out previously - those are just affecting how efficiently your lasers are converting the input energy into output energy.



She doesn't like it. So what? Let it go... I'm not getting upset that she didn't even really comment on my religious naming convention for the lasers (although I want to - lol) Personally I think the kW or GW with a number is extremely sterile myself.


she doesn't like it BECAUSE SHE FAILED PHYSICS CLASS.

(i'm kidding of course.. but she is making a physics error)


I might just point out at this moment that "She" is actually a he...


:)

@CCP_FoxFour // Technical Designer // Team Tech Co

Third-party developer? Check out the official developers site for dev blogs, resources, and more.

CCP FoxFour
C C P
C C P Alliance
#245 - 2012-08-22 11:18:56 UTC
On the changing the lasers to numbers:

While yes I understand that power conversions are very rarely 100% efficient and you can blame away variations on varying levels of efficiency my concern with basing the number off of the weapon power is that if it relates at all to the PG used is if it does not match when a player looks, and they have been told it would, confusion would arises. Plus if we ever change the fitting requirements for the weapons...

On using diameter of the weapon, some of the larger weapons have multiple smaller barrels, so then you end up having to use smaller numbers on larger weapons...

The other side of it is Artillary, Auttocannons, Railguns already use the numbering scheme for their names. Having the lasers have names instead like Blasters adds to them being different. While people may think we are trying to destroy flavor in the game I hope the discussion in this thread shows we really are not.

@CCP_FoxFour // Technical Designer // Team Tech Co

Third-party developer? Check out the official developers site for dev blogs, resources, and more.

CCP FoxFour
C C P
C C P Alliance
#246 - 2012-08-22 11:24:45 UTC
Sudelle wrote:
Denidil wrote:
CCP FoxFour wrote:
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Aaron Greil wrote:
as an actual scientist and a dedicated amarr pilot, I would love if the naming scheme followed actual real life laser conventions. For all the other gun types, someone can simply punch in a number, like 425mm, or 800mm or 220mm, etc. to find the gun they're looking for. So, lets use the same for lasers! Since real life lasers are measured by their power output in watts, why not do the same thing. If a true class IV (can cause serious injury) laser is about 10 watts, then:
small lasers:
gatling --> 100 kW
dual light --> 200 kW
medium --> 500 kW

...


You can see the energy usage of lasers in its attributes tab. Even the smallest laser requires several GJ of energy each cycle.

In real life, roughly how efficient are lasers in converting input energy into an actual beam? That might help CCP finding appropriate watt numbers


And my problem with using number for lasers is this attribute is adjusted by skills, ships, implants, and I think boosters.


as i pointed out previously - those are just affecting how efficiently your lasers are converting the input energy into output energy.



She doesn't like it. So what? Let it go... I'm not getting upset that she didn't even really comment on my religious naming convention for the lasers (although I want to - lol) Personally I think the kW or GW with a number is extremely sterile myself.


Sorry, I didn't comment on it for a few reasons:
At the time the discussion was still about using Upgraded/Limited/Experimental/Prototype for the meta names and trying to keep things consistent. Correct me if I am wrong but your suggestion was about using religious names for the meta level. I liked the idea but at the same time didn't because it would not be applicable to other weapon types. If we go with putting a short handed name at the front of the weapon, like GSPL-01, to indicate meta level then this becomes possible. Not saying it will happen, just that it becomes possible.

I think it is important to point out there are kinda two parts, and two discussions to be had, about weapon names.

One is how we go about handling the meta level names, currently the Afocal/Modal/Anode/Modulated mess.
The second is the actual weapon names themselves, Gatling Pulse Laser, Dual Pulse Laser, Medium Pulse Laser (which is a small weapon).

Of the three above the only weapon name I want to change is Medium. I however still want to come up with a meta scheme that is consistent throughout all of the weapons and modules.

Does that make sense?

@CCP_FoxFour // Technical Designer // Team Tech Co

Third-party developer? Check out the official developers site for dev blogs, resources, and more.

CCP FoxFour
C C P
C C P Alliance
#247 - 2012-08-22 11:25:46 UTC
Oh also, thanks for keeping this discussion going guys. I should have a conclusion on this matter soon(tm), need to have a small meeting internally about this. :)

@CCP_FoxFour // Technical Designer // Team Tech Co

Third-party developer? Check out the official developers site for dev blogs, resources, and more.

Kethry Avenger
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#248 - 2012-08-22 11:41:48 UTC
CCP FoxFour wrote:


Sorry, I didn't comment on it for a few reasons:
At the time the discussion was still about using Upgraded/Limited/Experimental/Prototype for the meta names and trying to keep things consistent. Correct me if I am wrong but your suggestion was about using religious names for the meta level. I liked the idea but at the same time didn't because it would not be applicable to other weapon types. If we go with putting a short handed name at the front of the weapon, like GSPL-01, to indicate meta level then this becomes possible. Not saying it will happen, just that it becomes possible.

I think it is important to point out there are kinda two parts, and two discussions to be had, about weapon names.

One is how we go about handling the meta level names, currently the Afocal/Modal/Anode/Modulated mess.
The second is the actual weapon names themselves, Gatling Pulse Laser, Dual Pulse Laser, Medium Pulse Laser (which is a small weapon).

Of the three above the only weapon name I want to change is Medium. I however still want to come up with a meta scheme that is consistent throughout all of the weapons and modules.

Does that make sense?


Yes by all means change medium pulse lasers, to something else that makes sense, and sounds more deadly...

Please don't use the same Meta name scheme for all weapons and modules. I would much prefer a few meta schemes, at the very least one for weapons and one for modules.

Preferably a couple more, could do it based on slot. that could actually add information. If you've been playing a while then that would help you search. While being consistent.

If you add the shorthanded name please put it at the end of the name like you do with implants. It just looks wrong in front.

Thanks for all the time your putting into this.
CCP FoxFour
C C P
C C P Alliance
#249 - 2012-08-22 11:44:14 UTC
Kethry Avenger wrote:
CCP FoxFour wrote:


Sorry, I didn't comment on it for a few reasons:
At the time the discussion was still about using Upgraded/Limited/Experimental/Prototype for the meta names and trying to keep things consistent. Correct me if I am wrong but your suggestion was about using religious names for the meta level. I liked the idea but at the same time didn't because it would not be applicable to other weapon types. If we go with putting a short handed name at the front of the weapon, like GSPL-01, to indicate meta level then this becomes possible. Not saying it will happen, just that it becomes possible.

I think it is important to point out there are kinda two parts, and two discussions to be had, about weapon names.

One is how we go about handling the meta level names, currently the Afocal/Modal/Anode/Modulated mess.
The second is the actual weapon names themselves, Gatling Pulse Laser, Dual Pulse Laser, Medium Pulse Laser (which is a small weapon).

Of the three above the only weapon name I want to change is Medium. I however still want to come up with a meta scheme that is consistent throughout all of the weapons and modules.

Does that make sense?


Yes by all means change medium pulse lasers, to something else that makes sense, and sounds more deadly...

Please don't use the same Meta name scheme for all weapons and modules. I would much prefer a few meta schemes, at the very least one for weapons and one for modules.

Preferably a couple more, could do it based on slot. that could actually add information. If you've been playing a while then that would help you search. While being consistent.

If you add the shorthanded name please put it at the end of the name like you do with implants. It just looks wrong in front.

Thanks for all the time your putting into this.


You're more then welcome. The only reason I was thinking at front is for when you are looking in your inventory and the names are truncated.

@CCP_FoxFour // Technical Designer // Team Tech Co

Third-party developer? Check out the official developers site for dev blogs, resources, and more.

Noisrevbus
#250 - 2012-08-22 12:47:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
I'd say that the only thing you should bother yourselves with is the gameplay-affecting side of changing the names. Apart from that i really could care less.

Clearing up unecessary confusion can be a good thing and will help younger players.

At the same time EVE is a game that rest on it's complexity where knowledge is power. Shift that so much that you overdo it and the game will lose it's charm for many players as well.

I'm not saying either way when it comes to this isolated issue, i'm just saying you should keep that in mind now that you create new and powerful information tools.

What you should ask yourselves is what gameplay-value this hold and wether these obstacles are arbitrary or ehancing.

Take the hoovering tooltips for example. Learning various tackle-distances or weapon-distances is significant for the game and has traditionally been one very basic way to determine the difference between "good" and "bad" players. With that information readily available you erase part of that distinction. That's an issue you should keep in mind when you simplify the game, so it doesn't become simplistic.

It's always valuable to remember that this game have less apeal than many other outside of the knowledge-spectrum (less of other components like micro or twitch), so removing knowledge-intense portions of the game will also remove part of it's depth. Powerful tools are not always or exclusively good: Look at the standings mechanics.
Sudelle
Tir Asleen
#251 - 2012-08-22 13:02:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Sudelle
CCP FoxFour wrote:


Sorry, I didn't comment on it for a few reasons:
At the time the discussion was still about using Upgraded/Limited/Experimental/Prototype for the meta names and trying to keep things consistent. Correct me if I am wrong but your suggestion was about using religious names for the meta level. I liked the idea but at the same time didn't because it would not be applicable to other weapon types. If we go with putting a short handed name at the front of the weapon, like GSPL-01, to indicate meta level then this becomes possible. Not saying it will happen, just that it becomes possible.

I think it is important to point out there are kinda two parts, and two discussions to be had, about weapon names.

One is how we go about handling the meta level names, currently the Afocal/Modal/Anode/Modulated mess.
The second is the actual weapon names themselves, Gatling Pulse Laser, Dual Pulse Laser, Medium Pulse Laser (which is a small weapon).

Of the three above the only weapon name I want to change is Medium. I however still want to come up with a meta scheme that is consistent throughout all of the weapons and modules.

Does that make sense?


Yep, perfect sense. Kind of what I was trying to do, but my suggestion was a bit more sweeping than just for the Medium laser. It would have been for everything. And if we are only interested in finding a new name for the Medium, and then a new scheme for the meta level on all weapons and not just Amarr weapons I can see why you wouldn't want to go that route. How about Large? (<-- Sarcasm). Just using the thesaurus for Medium you could use Intermediate or Standard, none of which I'm too impressed with, but might work for something in the small territory. Just to throw out some other names Compressed, Dense, or Coupled (sounds like Dual though...)

I also agree with other posters that, if we can, we should try not to use these same meta names on everything. Try to keep a set for weapons, and then another set for other modules. And as you go forward, maybe other sets of names for different types of modules (armor combined or separate of shield?)

I'd prefer to see the empires have different meta naming schemes as I believe they were separated for a long period of time while developing their unique technologies. And I can see the Minmatar not wanting to use the Amarr naming, and the Caldari not wanting to use the Gallente naming because... well because they hate each other. I can almost see them using modal and modulated on different metas just for spite, although it obviously makes it confusing to some players. But that doesn't sound what you are currently trying to get accomplished, which is fine. Smile


Edit:
Oh and just for clarification. My original suggestion had both meta level suggestions (Anointed / Blessed / Holy / Exalted) and then a sweeping change for the lasers in general (Banishing / Purging / Smiting / Eradicating - that you would put a size in front of). But again, I know you aren't looking for a sweeping change for the entire laser tree, just the Medium name within the small lasers. And you are also currently looking to use these meta names for either all modules, or just the weapons modules at the moment. So these suggestions don't really fit into your current scope.
Vilnius Zar
SDC Multi Ten
#252 - 2012-08-22 13:23:27 UTC
Why not have an icon depict meta level 0-4, just like T2/faction/etc. It could be 4 bars 0 filled for meta 0 and 4 filled for meta 4, kinda like how it's done in EVEmon. That would make sense as and it would free up room for names.
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#253 - 2012-08-22 14:28:04 UTC
GSPL-01 etc made me puke a little...
The suggestion about class1, class2 is so much better.
You could also find a short unique name insted:

meta 1 : 'odor' upgraded small pulse laser I
meta 2 : 'blista' limited small pulse laser I
meta 3 : 'burna' experimental small pulse laser I
meta 4 : 'zappa' prototype small pulse laser I

like a brand name from companies or something... Those acronyms will take away the spirit of Eve and when everything has it make it very difficult to get a good overview on your modules...

You definately have to keep the laser unique names seperated from the hybrids.

Pinky
Panhead4411
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services
The Possum Lodge
#254 - 2012-08-22 14:30:43 UTC
CCP FoxFour wrote:
[ I don't want to promise more than I am sure I can deliver so for now lasers!


But it works for Soundwave and all who were involved in the Unified Fubar that is the new inventory...they promised many things...most of which never happened.

-On Topic-
But seriosuly, can we please stop making the name of each module as long as a sentence? The market screen is becoming increasing harder to distinguish between items w/o making the window huge...

http://blog.beyondreality.se/shift-click-does-nothing    < Unified Inventory is NOT ready...

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#255 - 2012-08-22 14:42:29 UTC
CCP FoxFour wrote:
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Aaron Greil wrote:
as an actual scientist and a dedicated amarr pilot, I would love if the naming scheme followed actual real life laser conventions. For all the other gun types, someone can simply punch in a number, like 425mm, or 800mm or 220mm, etc. to find the gun they're looking for. So, lets use the same for lasers! Since real life lasers are measured by their power output in watts, why not do the same thing. If a true class IV (can cause serious injury) laser is about 10 watts, then:
small lasers:
gatling --> 100 kW
dual light --> 200 kW
medium --> 500 kW

...


You can see the energy usage of lasers in its attributes tab. Even the smallest laser requires several GJ of energy each cycle.

In real life, roughly how efficient are lasers in converting input energy into an actual beam? That might help CCP finding appropriate watt numbers


And my problem with using number for lasers is this attribute is adjusted by skills, ships, implants, and I think boosters.


if you buy a 4Ghz intel CPU and overclock it to 4.5Ghz you sitll have the 4Ghz intel CPU not a 4.5Ghz CPU despite the fact that it is running at a higher frequency. Its the only way to tell your friend what you have bought.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Captain Praxis
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#256 - 2012-08-22 14:46:22 UTC
CCP FoxFour wrote:

... how we go about handling the meta level names, currently the Afocal/Modal/Anode/Modulated mess...


What exactly is the mess you're trying to sort out with these meta-level names? Taken just as they are now, I think they're fine. The only potential thing I can see is that blasters also use the "Anode" and "Modal" meta names. I'm not sure that this is really so much of a problem that the whole meta-scheme for lasers (or blasters) needs to be altered.

CCP FoxFour wrote:

...the actual weapon names themselves, Gatling Pulse Laser, Dual Pulse Laser, Medium Pulse Laser (which is a small weapon).


Again, the only problem I can see here is choosing something to replace "Medium" with - there's nothing wrong with "Gatling" and "Dual". In fact "Medium" actually makes sense if you read it in the context of the entire progression of laser turrets, from the frigate-sized "Gatling", "Dual", "Medium" to the cruiser/BC "Focused", "Heavy", the battleship "Dual Heavy", "Mega" to the capital "Giga". So it's not just finding a word to substitute for "Medium", but also one that makes sense in the overall laser scheme.

CCP FoxFour wrote:

Of the three above the only weapon name I want to change is Medium. I however still want to come up with a meta scheme that is consistent throughout all of the weapons and modules.


I really hope you don't mean finding something along the lines of the "Upgraded", "Limited", "Experimental", "Prototype" nonsense and applying it to all modules. If you're talking about having a set of meta-names to apply to all turrets and a second set to apply to all modules then that's really just as bad. At the very least, each type of turret (laser, projectile, hybrid, missile - yes I'm including missile launchers here since they're a weapon and they fit in a high-slot) should have a unique meta-scheme.

Ideally each type of module (propulsion, ewar, armour, shield, and so on) should have a unique meta-name scheme that makes sense for the type of module being named.

Laser turrets are an Amarr-designed weapon so why would they have the same nomenclature as projectile weapons which are a primarily Minmatar weapon? Let's not forget here that the two empires in question have historically been at war, and are still technically in conflict, so would be unlikely to want to adopt a naming system used by the other. Likewise, ECM modules are primarily a Caldari type of EWAR, so why would ECM modules use the same nomenclature as weapon disruptors (which are primarily Amarrian)?

I know that creates more work for you, but the names/scheme should really be chosen for what makes the most sense in-universe, not for making devs' lives easiest (sorry)!

I also know you've also stated above that your intention with the module renaming is not to destroy flavour, but I think it's important to make the point that most of the ideas that have been discussed so far will have destruction of flavour as a consequence, whether intended or not.

FakeEdit: I like the religious meta-names posted by Sudelle. Something like this would make sense for a weapon system designed and used by an empire of religious zealots who are on a crusade to rid heresy from the galaxy Cool
Axl Borlara
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#257 - 2012-08-22 16:13:06 UTC
Captain Praxis wrote:
CCP FoxFour wrote:

... how we go about handling the meta level names, currently the Afocal/Modal/Anode/Modulated mess...


What exactly is the mess you're trying to sort out with these meta-level names? Taken just as they are now, I think they're fine. The only potential thing I can see is that blasters also use the "Anode" and "Modal" meta names. I'm not sure that this is really so much of a problem that the whole meta-scheme for lasers (or blasters) needs to be altered.


Completely agree.

Quote:

CCP FoxFour wrote:

Of the three above the only weapon name I want to change is Medium. I however still want to come up with a meta scheme that is consistent throughout all of the weapons and modules.


I really hope you don't mean finding something along the lines of the "Upgraded", "Limited", "Experimental", "Prototype" nonsense and applying it to all modules. If you're talking about having a set of meta-names to apply to all turrets and a second set to apply to all modules then that's really just as bad. At the very least, each type of turret (laser, projectile, hybrid, missile - yes I'm including missile launchers here since they're a weapon and they fit in a high-slot) should have a unique meta-scheme.


Totally agree.

Quote:

Ideally each type of module (propulsion, ewar, armour, shield, and so on) should have a unique meta-name scheme that makes sense for the type of module being named.


This is definitely the right way to do it. I couldn't agree more.

It's more work and more names. But those names will be useful.
You could search for Prototype and get a list of every meta 4 module in the game. Not particularly useful.
Or, you could search for Modulated and get every meta 4 laser.
Or 'Scout' to get meta 4 projectile turrets.

Don't forget to add meta numbers to the icons.
Karash Amerius
The Seven Shadows
#258 - 2012-08-22 17:22:41 UTC
Name the modules anything you want (except drop the stupid Medium nomenclature for small lasers)...just make sure ALL modules have M1 - M4 in the name. Problem solved.

People forget that originally lasers were classed as an "oversized" weapon platform, thus why small lasers were named "medium". The PG and Cap usage made the devs in '02 / '03 to class them this way. Whatever happens, the community will not be very happy with any change to be honest. Good luck.

Karash Amerius Operative, Sutoka

Vrykolakasis
Sparrowhawks Corp
#259 - 2012-08-22 18:19:37 UTC
Read a good portion of the first page and part of the last, this may have already been pointed out multiple times, or even resolved: even though it makes sense as it is (EVE is a corporate world and inter-corporate naming conventions don't always make sense), I'm OK with unifying the name changes, except for the ******** current meta naming convention. It's already stupid where it's used: "Prototype" and "Experimental" are words for items that are not incredibly common like these items are, and "Limited" is a word for something that is less functional, not improved. Modal, afocal, etc sound really cool, and should be kept, in my opinion, but standardized. If nothing else, keep "Upgraded" and choose some other words that at least make sense (you have an entire language to choose from).
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#260 - 2012-08-22 19:33:16 UTC
For all that is holy, please, please DO NOT apply the same naming scheme to all weapons and modules. With a "!" and a few "111"s on top. There's already little enough distinction between playing different races, aside from ship model style. Don't take away our imaginary, non-gameplay impeding flavor as well.

A set of names for weapons and a set for modules is the bare minimum. Really, it would be ideal for everyone to have weapons named differently for each race. I like the religious idea for the Amarr- I'd love to have a meta 4 tachyon laser named a "Reclaimer." :) Anyways, at minimum, don't vanilla-fy the flavor text on racial items. There's not much flavor left as it is, with cross training and everything (which for the record I do approve of for gameplay reasons). At least give the illusion that the races are significant within the universe, to keep New Eden a cool, otherworldly place.