These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Petition to restore old names and stop the renaming process - SIGN HERE.

First post
Author
Grey Stormshadow
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2012-02-29 17:11:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Grey Stormshadow
This is petition to restore all the item names which were already renamed and to stop the entire renaming process for good.

CCP clearly ignores the fact that old item names are well known to most veteran players and they give depth and variety to the game. Simple tasks like manufacturing, trading, pvp or missioning become pain when you don't know what your modules or ammo do any more. You have to learn everything again.

I wonder what is the idea behind this... Is it better that new player learns stuff once or that new player learns stuff once and old player studies the same stuff twice? This has to be CCP logic.

Another thing to remember is that renaming the items do not only affect those who play the game, but also those who have done or use external 3rd party programs or spreadsheets. Fixing all 3rd party data containers will cause work hours for years.

If we think about the new player, 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 in item group view. 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 to enable the meta level column in hangar by default too as most people don't even know that it is there. Makes it bit hard to sort stuff...

Other alternative ways to avoid renaming and to help all players:
- 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.

Please sign up if you're with me in this fail boat.

Get classic forum style - custom videos to captains quarters screen

Play with the best - die like the rest

Alistair Cononach
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#2 - 2012-02-29 17:13:29 UTC
I support CCP on this change.

TheBreadMuncher
Protus Correction Facility Inc.
#3 - 2012-02-29 17:14:10 UTC
Veteran players have already made all the alts they need. Friendlier interface = more new players that can understand the game = more new alt accounts = more RL ISK for CCP.

"We will create the introduction thread if that is requested by the community. Also, we will have an ISD Seminar about the CCL team in the coming weeks in which you can ask your questions about the CCL team and provide some constructive feedback to us." - Countless pages of locked threads and numerous permabanned accounts later, change is coming.

Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#4 - 2012-02-29 17:15:05 UTC
Dumbing EVE down for the new peeps is CCPs FOTM.





There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#5 - 2012-02-29 17:15:51 UTC
Alistair Cononach wrote:
I support CCP on this change.


yep

too bad the forums don't have a dislike so we can negrep the op into oblivion

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Alistair Cononach
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#6 - 2012-02-29 17:19:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Alistair Cononach
Doc Fury wrote:
Dumbing EVE down for the new peeps is CCPs FOTM.



There is nothing "smart" about an artificial and needlessly complicated barrier-of-entry to new players. Just because we suffered through and past it, does not make keeping it the right design choice for all eternity. For example, see the now-defunct Learning Skills.

For Veterans, such as myself, I'll never understand the hatred toward positive changes designed to streamline and ease new player entry.

Without new players subbing and playing, we Vets will have fewer and fewer people to kill.

If getting a few hundred new targets to pew pew means streamlining the naming convention of modules to somethign logical and straitforward, so be it. It's worth more to the games long-term health to retain new players than it is to appease bittervets over mod. names.
Kyle Valentine
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2012-02-29 17:29:55 UTC
Accessibility < Immersion.

Too much accessibility kill games.

No to the WoW spirit.
No to the new names.
Grey Stormshadow
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2012-02-29 17:29:57 UTC
Alistair Cononach wrote:
Doc Fury wrote:
Dumbing EVE down for the new peeps is CCPs FOTM.



There is nothing "smart" about an artificial and needlessly complicated barrier-of-entry to new players. Just because we suffered through and past it, does not make keeping it the right design choice for all eternity. For example, see the now-defunct Learning Skills.

For Veterans, such as myself, I'll never understand the hatred toward positive changes designed to streamline and ease new player entry.

Without new players subbing and playing, we Vets will have fewer and fewer people to kill.

If getting a few hundred new targets to pew pew means streamlining the naming convention of modules to somethign logical and straitforward, so be it. It's worth more to the games long-term health to retain new players than it is to appease bittervets over mod. names.

They could do much better things like adding the compare tool to neocom and making meta levels visible in markets group view... but no.

Get classic forum style - custom videos to captains quarters screen

Play with the best - die like the rest

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#9 - 2012-02-29 17:30:19 UTC
Nah.

It's a nice improvement that doesn't dumb down the game in any way. Variety can be maintained by having a few different schemes, if that's so near and dear to everyone's hearts, but the schemes themselves are an excellent idea.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#10 - 2012-02-29 17:35:02 UTC
Does anyone but gankers actually use T1 crap?

After a month in the game any normal PVPer is T2 fitted and PVEers are faction fitted. Seriously...meta whining...tempest in a teapot much?

How to make a mountain out of a molehill, you bored, whiny gits.

Mr Epeen Cool
Ajita al Tchar
Doomheim
#11 - 2012-02-29 17:38:00 UTC
Don't like the new names, don't think the old names should return though. A change was needed, but the way it was implemented, IMO, was kind of a let down.

CCP, when you fix the more important stuff, please go back for a round 2 at naming things nicely, creatively and in a manner that makes sense?..
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#12 - 2012-02-29 17:44:11 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Does anyone but gankers actually use T1 crap?
Sure. The tier-3 BCs in particular are quite common recipients of meta fittings since they have a fairly tight CPU and grid budget after those large turrets are put in. Also, there are a few ships that have very tight fitting space without maxed skills (eg. the recons, logis) or just due to built-in bonuses (the Ishtar's low CPU to balance out the built-in drone link).

Likewise, any time you want to shield-tank a ship that's really intended for armour tanks, the CPU saved by going for meta 4 often comes in handy.

…and finally, of course, there are the modules where the meta versions are just plain old better than the T2 (RT plates, PWNAGE… some would even argue the remote rep modules).
Trainwreck McGee
Doomheim
#13 - 2012-02-29 17:48:03 UTC
This election year I'm voting for Change

I just wish CCP had a better grasp of reality or the English language because so far the name changes have been at best a complete waste of time and at worst more confusing then the old names.

CCP Trainwreck - Weekend Custodial Engineer / CCP Necrogoats foot stool

Reilly Duvolle
Hydra Squadron
#14 - 2012-02-29 17:50:59 UTC
Sorry OP. CCP is on the money on this one.
Real Poison
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2012-02-29 17:57:14 UTC
2003 player here, do i count as veteran?

i think my brain is still able to adapt to change.

so i fully support CCP on this :P


pls everybody imagine a -1 on OP
Grey Stormshadow
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2012-02-29 18:09:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Grey Stormshadow
People who really think that naming change helps noobs more than it hurts vets is a tool. No offence.

It also dumps down the game a great deal.

Get classic forum style - custom videos to captains quarters screen

Play with the best - die like the rest

Real Poison
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2012-02-29 18:19:23 UTC
Grey Stormshadow wrote:
People who really think that naming change helps noobs more than it hurts vets is a tool. No offence.

It also dumps down the game a great deal.


Dude, stop living in the past.

Insulting ppl and then saying no offence is still an insult.

Go back and work on your weird Greasemonkey scripts so eve|gate will again look like the ActiveServerPages version from 10 years ago.

Sprite Can
#18 - 2012-02-29 18:20:34 UTC
This is why the forums need a dislike button.

Refreshing Lemon-Lime~

Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#19 - 2012-02-29 18:22:35 UTC
I have no problems with the goal of these changes. My only gripe is with the implementation, which misses the opportunity to improve the names as well as make them more functional. It's still more good than bad and I can live with the bad.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#20 - 2012-02-29 18:23:13 UTC
Grey Stormshadow wrote:
People who really think that naming change helps noobs more than it hurts vets is a tool. No offence.
And you're an idiot. No offence. Consistency is more helpful than complete arbitrariness.
Quote:
It also dumps down the game a great deal.
Not really, no. It makes absolutely no difference for the cleverness needed to play the game — it just removes pointless obscurity.
123Next pageLast page