EVE General Discussion

I rest my case.

Oh, sure, just make something up, thats the way to go.
- The MWD naming makes NO sense without introducing the missing meta lvls.
- The naming before WAS consistent, now it is not. (at least, best named AB/MWD of one size was one name, now its a mess)
- Yeah yeah, go on, call me names and stuff, you cant dodge the invalidation of what you say by throwing curses at me.

As you dont come up with ....any...single...one....argument, I must assume you dont have any.



What I complain most about is, that the naming actually was consistent before they messed it up, I dont care how they are called (but the names suck as they are), I just say, either fill in the missing meta lvl mods, or name all the same as it were.


just what I was thinking

The missile changes were OK. Took a little getting used to but easier to remember which missiles do what damage now.

Agree with the OP though about prop mod changes. The new names aren't any simpler, in fact they're more confusing because the same suffix refers to both MWDs and Afterburners now, just of different sizes.

At this point I think dicking with it anymore, even to just go back to the old names, will do nothing but confuse everyone even more. In a year nobody will give a ****, might as well get used to it.

This makes sense to me. Imagine how messy it would be if the empty slots collapsed the naming convention and you ended up with:

Meta 0: 1MN / 10MN / 100MN Afterburner I
Meta 2: Upgraded 1MN Afterburner I
Meta 3: Experimental 1MN / 10MN / 100MN Afterburner I
Meta 5: Prototype 1MN / 10MN / 100MN Afterburner

That would be very illogical and would make it more difficult for them to add Meta 1 and Meta 4 and yet retain the same naming convention.

/shudders

o.O

- meta5 is t2...

- before it was: best named AB = same name as best named MWD, different size, different name

- now it is: all best named ABs of all size = one name, all best named MWDs = different name each

This makes no sense, naming did not care for meta lvl before they change it, so either name all best named speed-mods the same, or introduce the missing meta lvls!



Because this would take too much substance out of EVE? I´d rather have a shiny and/or cryptical name on my gun, than just a number.

What do you want to happen if they introduce Meta 6 for AB, but not for MWD in the next expansion? Do you then want it to update the best named speed-mod for MWD so the Meta 5 one is now the same name as the Meta 6 AB one? (Assume there is a reason Meta 6 is not being introduced for MWD)

Good thing I didn't make anything up then.

…except that it makes perfect sense, just like the meta 11–14 modules did even though they had the same kinds of gaps. Name = meta + size + module type . In fact, I rather have to ask: do you know how the meta 11–14 module naming scheme works? Do you know the gaps it had before? The gaps do not invalidate the patter or the structure — in fact that it's consistent in spite of gaps in the module flora shows that its consistency is vastly increased. Figuring out the higher (and best) meta is a simple matter of knowing the meta names.

This was not the case before, when neither meta nor module type was evident in the name; when the naming was inconsistent with both; and when you had to learn more names to know what you were looking at.

Also, I suppose it's a good thing I didn't call you any names then, or dodged any of your invalidations. I think you might be confusing me with you… how about you actually show that the structured setup of the new names is inconsistent and harder to grasp, now that both meta and module type appears in the name (unlike before)?

So before: you had to know what the “best meta” name was (3 versions). You had to know which naming scheme represented which size (3 versions). You had to know what module was which (4 versions). You had to hope that they didn't something as creative as add anything… That's 10 things to remember on six modules alone to set them apart. Now, you have to know 4 things… which can actually be reduced to 3 if you simple rule of exclusion (the unknown name is lowest-meta). Everything else is encoded in the name. Now would you kindly explain why this easily expanded 3-points-to-remember setup is much messier, more complicated, and harder to learn than the brittle and unchangeable 10-point version we had before?

This is false, of course, which you would know if you had actually read what I wrote.

…except, of course, that you didn't know it before you started to cry about things being broken and that your crying about it was a direct result of you not knowing this rather simple fact. Also, your naming scheme was not consistent. The best meta did not have the same names — instead they forced you to learn far more things, even for such a simple thing as telling the module types apart. It also left no room for changes. Your supposed naming scheme was not just inconsistent — it was brittle as hell and any kind of change or addition would have ruined it.

…which isn't a problem since the name says whether it's an MWD or an afterburner, which it didn't do before.

You had to do that before as well since the name didn't explain what module it was. Now they do. Easier.
…and you had to know which name was for which size. The name itself didn't tell you, now it does. Easier.
All ABs and MWDs are named by meta, knowing which is the best is a simple matter of knowing the meta names. You now need to know 2-3 things in total — that is all. Easier.
…which meant you had to know what the names meant already and couldn't fall back on some common scheme for sizes you hadn't learned yet. Now you don't. Easier.

Look. It's very simple. Would you please create a schema for the naming convention of the old modules that fully explains which module is which in terms of the type, the meta level, and the size — the three things you need to know in order to figure out whether it will fit on your ship and how it will perform.

For the new naming convention, the schema is as follows:

[meta] [size] [type]
…where [meta] is one of Upgraded (1); Limited (2); Experimental (3); Prototype (4).
…where [size] is one of 1MN; 10MN; 100MN.
…where [type] is one of Afterburner; MicroWarpdrive.

This covers every last named module in the propulsion module category — 8 in total — and covers any additional modules in the same category, should they ever think to add some. In total, 24 module versions can be covered by this schema.

And sure it was impossible to just add 1/10/100mn to the old names. o.O

Yeah, 4 names for meta 1-4 is easier than 3 names for all 1/10/100mn (one name per size) best named!

see above: "10mn" can be added to any name

Thanks for telling everyone. -.-
The scheme is ok, but scheme + mods = fail, old scheme + mods = ok, dont get it, huh?

But keep on trollin, you are not thaaat bad at it.

…but it wasn't there, so the old scheme was not as easy as the new one, contrary to what you're trying to claim.
|Yes it is, since it covers every module (including best named) rather than just best named, and since you can reduce those 4 to 2 or 3 if you really want to.
I get that you couldn't produce a schema to convey the information in a clear and concise manner… which isn't surprising since no such schema existed because the old one was a mess that didn't actually provide the information in any way that was easy to understand and learn for new players.

So would you like to try to produce such a schema and show that the old one was indeed easier, somehow? Or do you want to keep avoiding the question and go for ad hominems and other evasion tactics instead?