These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: What's in a name

First post First post
Author
Pierced Brosmen
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#461 - 2012-03-02 13:25:46 UTC
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
#462 - 2012-03-02 13:35:45 UTC
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.

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

Ceptia Cyna
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#463 - 2012-03-02 13:35:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Ceptia Cyna
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
#464 - 2012-03-02 14:00:38 UTC

  • 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. Evil


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
#465 - 2012-03-02 14:25:22 UTC
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
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#466 - 2012-03-02 14:32:48 UTC
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.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
#467 - 2012-03-02 14:42:09 UTC
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

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}

Jace Errata
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#468 - 2012-03-02 15:09:10 UTC
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/

tweeten

One day they woke me up so I could live forever

It's such a shame the same will never happen to you

Sturmwolke
#469 - 2012-03-02 15:27:51 UTC
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
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#470 - 2012-03-02 15:54:20 UTC
Khorr Dark wrote:

  • AB renaming -> "Quad LiF Fueled I Booster Rockets" stays or I'm gone. Evil



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.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Tiger's Spirit
Perkone
Caldari State
#471 - 2012-03-02 15:56:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiger's Spirit
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
Minmatar Industrial Limited
#472 - 2012-03-02 16:00:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Szilardis
.
Szilardis
Minmatar Industrial Limited
#473 - 2012-03-02 16:00:55 UTC
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-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.


Which in turn takes its name from Mjölnir, the hammer of Thor the Thundergod of Norse mythology. Seems relevant to me.
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
#474 - 2012-03-02 16:05:36 UTC
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 Scope
#475 - 2012-03-02 16:07:41 UTC
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
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#476 - 2012-03-02 16:18:39 UTC
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-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.


Which in turn takes its name from Mjölnir, 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...)

tweeten

One day they woke me up so I could live forever

It's such a shame the same will never happen to you

Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#477 - 2012-03-02 16:20:09 UTC
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. Twisted


    Where I am.

    Trebor Daehdoow
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #478 - 2012-03-02 16:38:03 UTC
    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.

    Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

    DJ Obsidian
    RONA Legion
    RONA Directorate
    #479 - 2012-03-02 16:39:26 UTC
    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
    Obsidian Firelance Technologies
    #480 - 2012-03-02 16:39:49 UTC  |  Edited by: ORCACommander
    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