These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Rational explanation for the inconsistent new propulsion mod names
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1 - 2012-01-25 07:46:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Do the new propulsion mod names seem a bit inconsistent to you? Does the new system seem more complex rather than simpler?

Crossposting this from the test server boards:


Quote:

The names DO reflect the meta level of the modules. Technically there is no problem with that. Meta level tags are as follows for both afterburners and MWDs:

Meta 0: I
Meta 1: Upgraded
Meta 2: Limited
Meta 3: Experimental
Meta 4: Prototype
Meta 5: II


However there are too many meta levels and there is no consistency in meta levels. This makes it confusing and the system, in this particular case, fails to achieve more simplicity.

1mn MWD has a meta 1 and meta 2 version
10mn MWD has a meta 3 version
100mn MWD has a meta 4 version.

1mn AB has a meta 2 and 3 version
10mn AB has a meta 3 version
100mn AB has a meta 3 version

The meta 1,2,3 and 4 MWDs only difference from the Tech 1 version in capacitor penalty and that penalty is the same (19%) for meta 2,3 and 4.

In practice what the player cares about is distinguishing between "best named" and "second best named". Therefore the "best named" and "second best named" should both be of the same meta level across all sizes of both ABs and MWDs.


I'm confident that CCP will get around fixing this.
DarkAegix
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2012-01-25 07:55:44 UTC
I'd say that the propulsion modules should be given the first part of their old names, yet retain the standard meta 0 part as an ending.
So, the meta 10MN MWD will be called 'Y-T8 Overcharged 10MN Microwarpdrive' instead of 'Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive' or even the old 'Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon Microwarpdrive'.

1MN ABs and MWDs which have extra metas should be given a little number, where higher is obviously better.
Monopropellant Hydrazine 1MN Afterburner M2
Cold-Gas Arcjet 1MN Afterburner M3
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2012-01-25 08:04:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
DarkAegix wrote:
I'd say that the propulsion modules should be given the first part of their old names, yet retain the standard meta 0 part as an ending.
So, the meta 10MN MWD will be called 'Y-T8 Overcharged 10MN Microwarpdrive' instead of 'Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive' or even the old 'Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon Microwarpdrive'.

1MN ABs and MWDs which have extra metas should be given a little number, where higher is obviously better.
Monopropellant Hydrazine 1MN Afterburner M2
Cold-Gas Arcjet 1MN Afterburner M3


The naming scheme that CCP has adopted is completely fine, the AB and MWD meta levels are just all over the place so it looks confusing.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2012-01-25 10:43:21 UTC
Bumping so more people see it and realize what's going on before before dismissing name changes entirely.
Valei Khurelem
#5 - 2012-01-25 10:53:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Valei Khurelem
What it's going to be is some idiot is going around trying to change things acting like they know best ( most likely in management ) while everyone else rolls their eyes at the stupidity but can't do anything. This kind of thing apparently happened lots in the big game corporations like EA and SOE, it's because you're getting people who either hardly play the game or don't play games at all thinking they know everything about it.

I am still raging over the loss of great game ideas like Star Wars Galaxies and Spore because of people like this, ugh, at this rate I'm not even sure EVE Online will keep me entertained before the Mass Effect 3 release never mind after.

"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP."   - CCP Ytterbium
Tiberius Sunstealer
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#6 - 2012-01-25 10:56:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberius Sunstealer
Valei Khurelem wrote:
I am still raging over the loss of great game ideas like Star Wars Galaxies and Spore because of people like this, ugh, at this rate I'm not even sure EVE Online will keep me entertained before the Mass Effect 3 release never mind after.

Spore being regarded as good and looking forward to Mass Effect 3? 10/10.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2012-01-25 17:44:09 UTC
Valei Khurelem wrote:
What it's going to be is some idiot is going around trying to change things acting like they know best ( most likely in management )


Did you even read the original post? There's nothing wrong with CCP's intent, the meta levels for ABs and MWDs are just all over the place and they didn't change that (yet).
Valei Khurelem
#8 - 2012-01-25 17:45:00 UTC
Oh I agree, the intent is fantastic, there's just obviously someone going around and ******* that up for them, speaking of not reading.

"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP."   - CCP Ytterbium