These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Syndic Thrass
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#41 - 2012-08-14 15:16:13 UTC
Bloodpetal wrote:
Syndic Thrass wrote:
Bloodpetal wrote:


I REALLY dislike the UPgraded, Limited, blah, blah. I REALLY dislike it a LOT.

The reason is because then EVERYTHING sounds the same for meta level, and it really strips the soul out of it all. As well the naming scheme is REALLY unhelpful in every way to designate anything in terms of superiority. Yes, I understand that sometimes it can get sometimes overly complicated, but for each weapon type let them stand out and be a bit unique. I do agree that some of the Modal's confuse across the various types of weapons and those things should be addressed.

SO, please, please, please do not use the Upgraded, Limited, Prototype scheme for the weapon hardpoints. I'm really tired of seeing this scheme used.

Rename all the "Medium Pulse Lasers" to "Small Pulse Lasers" so people know they're not MEDIUM sized weapons (Which was super dumb). And make those necessary adjustments. Tweak some of the weapon meta types such as 'Scout' railguns and 'Scout' autocannons being the same meta type, or so on.

If you want to add a meta descriptor to stuff, reconsider using the 'I' at the end of all the modules and put a meta number, i.e.
Dual Afocal Pulse Laser M1
Dual Modal Pulse Laser M2
Dual Anode Pulse Paricle Stream M3
etc

Thanks for listening.


So you think that the current names "strip the soul out of it all" and you advocate the alternate naming convention of naming them all the same and slapping a number on the end?



Eh?

The new meta descriptors are bad.

Upgraded, Limited, Prototype are totally useless in relationship to each other to help it make more sense. I agree some of the obviously complicated things should be undone, but using the meta naming scheme they have is really awful as a step forward. As well, they really start to take some of the charm of the various modules away from them. Yes, it takes some time to learn it, but the real issue isn't the name of the descriptor, it's the fact that you call them all "T1" via the "I" designator, when really they're meta equipment. Instead of renaming everything with this bad scheme, just stick M1 or something like that and that resolves the superiority descriptor issue.

The meta # description is mostly just a compromise to the fact that the 'I' is a deception. They aren't really "T1", They're meta gear. And calling them T1 is a misnomer.


T1 gear is gear that isn't Meta 5+. You are confusing T1 and Meta 1. Refer above where i said you can ***** all day about what names FoxFour and them choose, or you can just look at them for 2 seconds and remember that Anode=Meta X. In short I wasn't saying it was a **** idea because you wanted the meta level to be more obvious, its a **** idea because you want the difference between every mod of similar types to be a number trailing it. Also under your bad system Tech 2 stuff would now be Meta 5 stuff because now T2 could mean Meta 2 or Tech 2 or maybe if you keep posting it could mean bad idea number 2.

Reguards, Iskies-mommies-toonies-corpies-goonies 0707 m8m8m8
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#42 - 2012-08-14 15:18:51 UTC
Harrigan VonStudly wrote:
The proposed names in the list looks pretty common sensical to me. THe only thing that doesn't seem to fit, at least for me, is the proposed names for the 'focused' type. Currently they are a medium small weapon. A more powerful version of smalls, if you will. Right? But the proposed name does not indicate that. Albeit medium as it is currently can be confusing especially since there is a medium size for cruisers/bc's.

As for a suggest clarifying change to what is proposed I have no answer yet.


I'm with Harri on this one. The naming convention for the meta level descriptor seems to have been a bunch of laser-related words that were selected at random and tossed in. What is proposed is dramatically improved. However, "focused" seems a weak word. Overcharged? Amplified? I don't know. Something that sounds more... destructive.
CCP FoxFour
C C P
C C P Alliance
#43 - 2012-08-14 15:22:35 UTC
Syndic Thrass wrote:
Bloodpetal wrote:
Syndic Thrass wrote:
Bloodpetal wrote:


I REALLY dislike the UPgraded, Limited, blah, blah. I REALLY dislike it a LOT.

The reason is because then EVERYTHING sounds the same for meta level, and it really strips the soul out of it all. As well the naming scheme is REALLY unhelpful in every way to designate anything in terms of superiority. Yes, I understand that sometimes it can get sometimes overly complicated, but for each weapon type let them stand out and be a bit unique. I do agree that some of the Modal's confuse across the various types of weapons and those things should be addressed.

SO, please, please, please do not use the Upgraded, Limited, Prototype scheme for the weapon hardpoints. I'm really tired of seeing this scheme used.

Rename all the "Medium Pulse Lasers" to "Small Pulse Lasers" so people know they're not MEDIUM sized weapons (Which was super dumb). And make those necessary adjustments. Tweak some of the weapon meta types such as 'Scout' railguns and 'Scout' autocannons being the same meta type, or so on.

If you want to add a meta descriptor to stuff, reconsider using the 'I' at the end of all the modules and put a meta number, i.e.
Dual Afocal Pulse Laser M1
Dual Modal Pulse Laser M2
Dual Anode Pulse Paricle Stream M3
etc

Thanks for listening.


So you think that the current names "strip the soul out of it all" and you advocate the alternate naming convention of naming them all the same and slapping a number on the end?



Eh?

The new meta descriptors are bad.

Upgraded, Limited, Prototype are totally useless in relationship to each other to help it make more sense. I agree some of the obviously complicated things should be undone, but using the meta naming scheme they have is really awful as a step forward. As well, they really start to take some of the charm of the various modules away from them. Yes, it takes some time to learn it, but the real issue isn't the name of the descriptor, it's the fact that you call them all "T1" via the "I" designator, when really they're meta equipment. Instead of renaming everything with this bad scheme, just stick M1 or something like that and that resolves the superiority descriptor issue.

The meta # description is mostly just a compromise to the fact that the 'I' is a deception. They aren't really "T1", They're meta gear. And calling them T1 is a misnomer.


T1 gear is gear that isn't Meta 5+. You are confusing T1 and Meta 1. Refer above where i said you can ***** all day about what names FoxFour and them choose, or you can just look at them for 2 seconds and remember that Anode=Meta X. In short I wasn't saying it was a **** idea because you wanted the meta level to be more obvious, its a **** idea because you want the difference between every mod of similar types to be a number trailing it. Also under your bad system Tech 2 stuff would now be Meta 5 stuff because now T2 could mean Meta 2 or Tech 2 or maybe if you keep posting it could mean bad idea number 2.


So to be honest chances are we are not going to be changing the whole Upgraded, Limited, Experimental, Prototype thing. First because doing that would mean doing it to all modules in the game using that system, and two because it is already miles ahead of where we were before. I am not trying to use the excuse "well it's better then it was" to end this, but changing them all is just not an option at this point and creating a new system, even if better, would only lead to fragmentation again.

Once we are at a point where things are consistent across the board and everything that needs to is using the Upgraded, Limited, Experimental, Prototype convention, we can talk about changing that.

@CCP_FoxFour // Technical Designer // Team Tech Co

Third-party developer? Check out the official developers site for dev blogs, resources, and more.
Dorian Wylde
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#44 - 2012-08-14 15:23:18 UTC
CCP FoxFour wrote:
Before I go into the details of what I am thinking I want to make a few things clear:

1) There is a reason for what I am doing. I am not doing this just to annoy people who run killboards.



Like that's not perfectly valid in itself.
Syndic Thrass
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#45 - 2012-08-14 15:23:47 UTC
Well seeing as Meta 5+ is stuff that was more or less rigged up by someone (a Faction Navy or Estamel etc), Meta 2-4 seeming like weak words could be because that basically means they were also "rigged up" for lack of a better word, they were just rigged by someone less proficient than some Faction's rigger-upper dude. The weak words are their power relative to T2+ stuff not relative to Meta 1.

That or someone just got a physics text book or something and picked some words.

Reguards, Iskies-mommies-toonies-corpies-goonies 0707 m8m8m8
Syndic Thrass
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#46 - 2012-08-14 15:24:36 UTC
CCP FoxFour wrote:
Syndic Thrass wrote:
Bloodpetal wrote:
Syndic Thrass wrote:
Bloodpetal wrote:


I REALLY dislike the UPgraded, Limited, blah, blah. I REALLY dislike it a LOT.

The reason is because then EVERYTHING sounds the same for meta level, and it really strips the soul out of it all. As well the naming scheme is REALLY unhelpful in every way to designate anything in terms of superiority. Yes, I understand that sometimes it can get sometimes overly complicated, but for each weapon type let them stand out and be a bit unique. I do agree that some of the Modal's confuse across the various types of weapons and those things should be addressed.

SO, please, please, please do not use the Upgraded, Limited, Prototype scheme for the weapon hardpoints. I'm really tired of seeing this scheme used.

Rename all the "Medium Pulse Lasers" to "Small Pulse Lasers" so people know they're not MEDIUM sized weapons (Which was super dumb). And make those necessary adjustments. Tweak some of the weapon meta types such as 'Scout' railguns and 'Scout' autocannons being the same meta type, or so on.

If you want to add a meta descriptor to stuff, reconsider using the 'I' at the end of all the modules and put a meta number, i.e.
Dual Afocal Pulse Laser M1
Dual Modal Pulse Laser M2
Dual Anode Pulse Paricle Stream M3
etc

Thanks for listening.


So you think that the current names "strip the soul out of it all" and you advocate the alternate naming convention of naming them all the same and slapping a number on the end?



Eh?

The new meta descriptors are bad.

Upgraded, Limited, Prototype are totally useless in relationship to each other to help it make more sense. I agree some of the obviously complicated things should be undone, but using the meta naming scheme they have is really awful as a step forward. As well, they really start to take some of the charm of the various modules away from them. Yes, it takes some time to learn it, but the real issue isn't the name of the descriptor, it's the fact that you call them all "T1" via the "I" designator, when really they're meta equipment. Instead of renaming everything with this bad scheme, just stick M1 or something like that and that resolves the superiority descriptor issue.

The meta # description is mostly just a compromise to the fact that the 'I' is a deception. They aren't really "T1", They're meta gear. And calling them T1 is a misnomer.


T1 gear is gear that isn't Meta 5+. You are confusing T1 and Meta 1. Refer above where i said you can ***** all day about what names FoxFour and them choose, or you can just look at them for 2 seconds and remember that Anode=Meta X. In short I wasn't saying it was a **** idea because you wanted the meta level to be more obvious, its a **** idea because you want the difference between every mod of similar types to be a number trailing it. Also under your bad system Tech 2 stuff would now be Meta 5 stuff because now T2 could mean Meta 2 or Tech 2 or maybe if you keep posting it could mean bad idea number 2.


So to be honest chances are we are not going to be changing the whole Upgraded, Limited, Experimental, Prototype thing. First because doing that would mean doing it to all modules in the game using that system, and two because it is already miles ahead of where we were before. I am not trying to use the excuse "well it's better then it was" to end this, but changing them all is just not an option at this point and creating a new system, even if better, would only lead to fragmentation again.

Once we are at a point where things are consistent across the board and everything that needs to is using the Upgraded, Limited, Experimental, Prototype convention, we can talk about changing that.



In all fairness though, it is better than it was.

Reguards, Iskies-mommies-toonies-corpies-goonies 0707 m8m8m8
CCP FoxFour
C C P
C C P Alliance
#47 - 2012-08-14 15:24:56 UTC
Bagehi wrote:
Harrigan VonStudly wrote:
The proposed names in the list looks pretty common sensical to me. THe only thing that doesn't seem to fit, at least for me, is the proposed names for the 'focused' type. Currently they are a medium small weapon. A more powerful version of smalls, if you will. Right? But the proposed name does not indicate that. Albeit medium as it is currently can be confusing especially since there is a medium size for cruisers/bc's.

As for a suggest clarifying change to what is proposed I have no answer yet.


I'm with Harri on this one. The naming convention for the meta level descriptor seems to have been a bunch of laser-related words that were selected at random and tossed in. What is proposed is dramatically improved. However, "focused" seems a weak word. Overcharged? Amplified? I don't know. Something that sounds more... destructive.


Thank you. Focused was what I had come up with but I can see what you mean. I will take a look at maybe updating it to something... more destructive as you so put it.

@CCP_FoxFour // Technical Designer // Team Tech Co

Third-party developer? Check out the official developers site for dev blogs, resources, and more.
Reticle
Sight Picture
#48 - 2012-08-14 15:25:27 UTC
I like the standardization efforts. You might consider coming up with a word for the weapon type that also connotes its size. The listed names in your example are getting cumbersomely long.

An example, not directly from eve, something like:
Gun = small
Rifle = medium
Cannon = large

Long = Long range
Short = short range
Mid = mid range

You could end up with something like: Short Gun I, Long Gun I, Short Gun IV, Long Gun IV, Short Gun V (t2), etc. You can throw in one more word for the type: Short Laser Gun I, etc. You can condense it even further by turning size into part of the meta number: Laser Gun SR-1, Laser Gun LR-1.

Just some thoughts. Love to see you guys working on the details. Esp. ones that hide meaning and clarity from noobs.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#49 - 2012-08-14 15:27:06 UTC
Syndic Thrass wrote:
Ravcharas wrote:
Yep, using watts or something like it makes a lot of sense.


Capacitors are charged in like Giga Joules or some such **** so naming them by Watts would A. Lead to boring as all hell names and B. Quite on the contrary, it would make no sense whatsoever seeing as Watts measure power and joules measure energy, I think ou lost a t somewhere in that naming convention of yours.


Watts and joules are both valid to indicate the strength of a laser. Joules is the total energy, while watts is joules per second.

The advantage of using watts here in EVE is that we don't have to worry about the number matching the capacitor consumption (which can change very significantly).

A 1 gigajoule laser could easily have peak power of several gigawatts if the beam duration is shorter than one second.
CCP FoxFour
C C P
C C P Alliance
#50 - 2012-08-14 15:28:03 UTC
Reticle wrote:
I like the standardization efforts. You might consider coming up with a word for the weapon type that also connotes its size. The listed names in your example are getting cumbersomely long.

An example, not directly from eve, something like:
Gun = small
Rifle = medium
Cannon = large

Long = Long range
Short = short range
Mid = mid range

You could end up with something like: Short Gun I, Long Gun I, Short Gun IV, Long Gun IV, Short Gun V (t2), etc. You can throw in one more word for the type: Short Laser Gun I, etc. You can condense it even further by turning size into part of the meta number: Laser Gun SR-1, Laser Gun LR-1.

Just some thoughts. Love to see you guys working on the details. Esp. ones that hide meaning and clarity from noobs.


As it stands Beam and Pulse currently take up the role of designating long or short range, generally speaking, and I don't think there is enough variation between the different guns in a specific group to warrant that.

For example there are only 2 medium sized pulse lasers, and they only have a small difference in capabilities.

@CCP_FoxFour // Technical Designer // Team Tech Co

Third-party developer? Check out the official developers site for dev blogs, resources, and more.
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#51 - 2012-08-14 15:28:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
CCP FoxFour wrote:


So to be honest chances are we are not going to be changing the whole Upgraded, Limited, Experimental, Prototype thing. First because doing that would mean doing it to all modules in the game using that system, and two because it is already miles ahead of where we were before. I am not trying to use the excuse "well it's better then it was" to end this, but changing them all is just not an option at this point and creating a new system, even if better, would only lead to fragmentation again.

Once we are at a point where things are consistent across the board and everything that needs to is using the Upgraded, Limited, Experimental, Prototype convention, we can talk about changing that.



With all due respect, then what are you looking an opinion on? Because looks like you're just testing how much blow back there will be and a lot less concerned about input on the naming schemes.

Also, as you did on the missile platforms you kept the "flavor" text.

Prototype 'Arbalest' Heavy Missile Launcher I.

So, it's not like you haven't already messed with your own scheme by incorporating the more interesting old designators as compromises to the situation. You've acknowledged by your own actions that the lack of interesting designators is a negative step and done design compromises to work with it even when it blatantly broke the schemes simplicity.


In other words, what stops you from making a Prototype Modulated Gatling Pulse Laser I

Where I am.
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2012-08-14 15:29:38 UTC
Bagehi wrote:
Harrigan VonStudly wrote:
The proposed names in the list looks pretty common sensical to me. THe only thing that doesn't seem to fit, at least for me, is the proposed names for the 'focused' type. Currently they are a medium small weapon. A more powerful version of smalls, if you will. Right? But the proposed name does not indicate that. Albeit medium as it is currently can be confusing especially since there is a medium size for cruisers/bc's.

As for a suggest clarifying change to what is proposed I have no answer yet.


I'm with Harri on this one. The naming convention for the meta level descriptor seems to have been a bunch of laser-related words that were selected at random and tossed in. What is proposed is dramatically improved. However, "focused" seems a weak word. Overcharged? Amplified? I don't know. Something that sounds more... destructive.


i like the focused. it gives away a small hint towards how (and when) to actually use the turret. (even though they all have the same signature resolution and only differ in range, tracking and rof)

gatling (strobe !) = pewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpew (mindless pewpew towards small targets)
dual (meh ) = pewpew pewpew pewpew pewpew pewpew pewpew (a bit more controlled fire, small and medium targets)
focused (!) = peeeeeeeeew peeeeeeeeew peeeeeeeeew peeeeeeeeew (very controlled fire, medium targets)
Syndic Thrass
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#53 - 2012-08-14 15:33:31 UTC
Reticle wrote:
I like the standardization efforts. You might consider coming up with a word for the weapon type that also connotes its size. The listed names in your example are getting cumbersomely long.

An example, not directly from eve, something like:
Gun = small
Rifle = medium
Cannon = large

Long = Long range
Short = short range
Mid = mid range

You could end up with something like: Short Gun I, Long Gun I, Short Gun IV, Long Gun IV, Short Gun V (t2), etc. You can throw in one more word for the type: Short Laser Gun I, etc. You can condense it even further by turning size into part of the meta number: Laser Gun SR-1, Laser Gun LR-1.

Just some thoughts. Love to see you guys working on the details. Esp. ones that hide meaning and clarity from noobs.


If you want to know what I was referring to when I said "whatever you dont don't just slap numbers on names and say we're good" I was talking about this exactly. Please dont ever do this with my precious Mega Pulse Laser II's

Reguards, Iskies-mommies-toonies-corpies-goonies 0707 m8m8m8
CCP FoxFour
C C P
C C P Alliance
#54 - 2012-08-14 15:33:37 UTC
Bloodpetal wrote:
CCP FoxFour wrote:


So to be honest chances are we are not going to be changing the whole Upgraded, Limited, Experimental, Prototype thing. First because doing that would mean doing it to all modules in the game using that system, and two because it is already miles ahead of where we were before. I am not trying to use the excuse "well it's better then it was" to end this, but changing them all is just not an option at this point and creating a new system, even if better, would only lead to fragmentation again.

Once we are at a point where things are consistent across the board and everything that needs to is using the Upgraded, Limited, Experimental, Prototype convention, we can talk about changing that.



With all due respect, then what are you looking an opinion on? Because looks like you're just testing how much blow back there will be and a lot less concerned about input on the naming schemes.

Also, as you did on the missile platforms you kept the "flavor" text.

Prototype 'Arbalest' Heavy Missile Launcher I.

So, it's not like you haven't already messed with your own scheme by incorporating the more interesting old designators as compromises to the situation. You've acknowledged by your own actions that the lack of interesting designators is a negative step and done design compromises to work with it even when it blatantly broke the schemes simplicity.


Because to be honest the more you guys agree on that the more weight it will have when we talk internally about it. For example right now we are debating if consistency is better then... well better meta descriptors and possibly doing the weapons in a new fashion. So please keep talking about it and let us know what you think.

@CCP_FoxFour // Technical Designer // Team Tech Co

Third-party developer? Check out the official developers site for dev blogs, resources, and more.
Crassus Detlator
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#55 - 2012-08-14 15:33:43 UTC
I think that before going on with the namen changeing (which I think is a good thing to stadarize modules, meta levels, etc), we should stop and think again of the meta level tags.
Currently, they force to memorize the order, with no particular clue or logic, so it would still force us to "show info" and look for the meta level until we know it by heart.
The current meta level words, should be better if changed to:

  • Experimental (Meta level 1)
  • Limited (Meta level 2)
  • Prototype (Meta level 3)
  • Upgraded (Meta level 4)


That way, the words, in alphabetical order, reflect the proper meta level, and lead to a better and more instictive use.

Also, I believe that the $size should always be the first item on the name, which would also make for sorting on the inventory and market for better and simpler distinction betweet weapons (and other modules):

  • Small Gatling Pulse Laser I
  • Small Experimental Gatling Pulse Laser I
  • Small Limited Gatling Pulse Laser I
  • Small Prototype Gatling Pulse Laser I
  • Small Upgraded Gatling Pulse Laser I
  • Small Gatling Pulse Laser II


A lot of people was concerned on losing some of the rich lore from eve, and considered this sort of changes to be s "dulling the game", and I cannot disagree 100% with that. To somehow keep the lore nameing, and make the modules a little more distinct, we could use the same logic for the meta levels, replacing "Gatling" for the other flavour word of choice. Something like this:

  • Small Gatling Pulse Laser I
  • Small Experimental Afocal Pulse Laser I
  • Small Limited Modal Pulse Laser I
  • Small Prototype Anode Pulse Laser I
  • Small Upgraded Modulated Pulse Laser I
  • Small Gatling Pulse Laser II


The two T1 and T2 modules distinguish themselves by having the same exact name and I and II respectively, and the other named modules, are sorted alphabetically by the Size and Meta-Level-Word.

Those are my two cents.

Thanks for reaching to us for feedback on something that really feels important to us players, even though it doesn't concerns game mechanics!

Crassus.
Kasutra
No Vacancies
No Vacancies.
#56 - 2012-08-14 15:34:02 UTC
I think changing the guns to the Upgraded/Limited/Experimental/Prototype naming scheme too is a bit generic.

Using a separate scheme for turrets, made from the most widely applicable current meta 1-4 names (Modal, Scout, etc.) would be interesting enough, I think. Maybe even two schemes, one for short range turrets and another for long range turrets.
But honestly, as long as there aren't any contradictions (Scout being Meta 3 for one kind of turret and Meta 4 for another), I think it's fine.

Lasers really have a problem. The currently proposed solution (Gatling/Dual/Focused) sounds as good as anything AFAIAC.
CorInaXeraL
The Dresdeneers
#57 - 2012-08-14 15:35:27 UTC
Gilbaron wrote:
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
CCP FoxFour

In real life, the strength of a laser is often expressed in watts. Watts is a measure of the amount of energy per second they can put out.

For example this article speaks about a megawatt laser: http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-01/navys-free-electron-laser-weapon-takes-big-leap-forward-powerful-new-electron-injector

Hybrid and Projectile turrets already have their barrel diameter in the name (ie. 250mm Railgun) why shouldn't lasers carry their wattage in the name? It fits nicely into a science fiction universe. The gigawatt values here very roughly reflect the actual energy consumption of the lasers too (though your resident physicist could certainly do a better job than me).

So this my proposal:

Frigate lasers
Light 2 Gigawatt Pulse Laser (formerly Gatling Pulse Laser)
Light 3 Gigawatt Pulse Laser (formerly Dual Light Pulse Laser)
Light 4 Gigawatt Pulse Laser (formerly Medium Pulse Laser)

Cruiser lasers
Medium 10 Gigawatt Pulse Laser (formerly Medium Focused Pulse Laser)
... (if it existed, this laser would be 15 Gigawatt)
Medium 20 Gigawatt Pulse Laser (formerly Heavy Pulse Laser)

Battleship lasers
Large 50 Gigawatt Laser (formerly Dual Heavy Pulse Laser)
... (if it existed, this laser would be 75 Gigawatt)
Large 100 Gigawatt Laser (formerly Mega Pulse Laser)

Capital lasers
X-Large 500 Gigawatt Laser (formerly Dual Giga Pulse Laser)

After that you, can add the usual meta prefixes (upgraded, limited, experimental, prototype)



welcome to the world of 2 edged swords

it is not a bad idea, but it could lure people (especially new players) into only using the ones with the biggest number. giving away a hint towards usage in the name is a pretty good idea, therefore gatling (strobe !) and focused are actually usefull, not 100% sure about dual. might have to rethink about that.


The notion that someone will just slap the 'biggest one on there' is a bit flawed when other weapon-systems (projectile, I'm looking at you) do much the same. You learn that, sometimes, a rack of 1200mm works out better than 1400mm, etc. It's not always 'biggest is best'. So I think that argument about it luring players into using big over practical is a bit underwhelming.

There could also be, if we look at the various 'lasers' out there, i.e. Maser, Laser, etc to help establish names, even though in truth a maser and laser are two separate things.

I, personally, like the notion of being able to quantify the output via means of a numerical value, such as the gigawatt output. I can't really see someone trying to believe it's related to capacitor consumption but I suppose others might. One thing I do agree fully with is addressing the 'medium are small' issue.
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#58 - 2012-08-14 15:55:27 UTC
CCP FoxFour wrote:

Because to be honest the more you guys agree on that the more weight it will have when we talk internally about it. For example right now we are debating if consistency is better then... well better meta descriptors and possibly doing the weapons in a new fashion. So please keep talking about it and let us know what you think.


I think the entire way lasers are design needs to be changed.

There are single, dual, triple and quadruple barreled turrets, and they have no consistent way of telling what is better in terms of visual design.

Maybe something like this:

Small Gatling Pulse Laser II
Small Focused Pulse Laser II
Small Dual-Focused Laser II

Medium Amplified Pulse Laser II
Medium Dual-Amplified Pulse Laser II

Heavy Modulated Pulse Laser II
Heavy Dual-Modulated Pulse Laser II

Maybe not the best of names, but it shows how every step up build on the previous design. Have either the multi barreled design be the best in it's group, or let it be the weakest in the group, building on the smaller sized lasers.

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

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#59 - 2012-08-14 15:56:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
By the way, "I" in meta 1-4 modules is really unnecessary. See this one here:

Dual Modal Pulse Laser I

We players don't consider this module to be tech 1. We consider it to be meta 1-4 or a "named module"
Reticle
Sight Picture
#60 - 2012-08-14 16:02:22 UTC
I don't get the point of using big ole meaningless names for what is a very simple schema. Its wonderful you old school guys love your game and the good ole days, but the naming conventions are overly long, arbitrary, inconsistent, and rely completely on memorizing the list. If you're going to have to memorize the list anyway, why bother with renaming at all? The names currently do nothing to help newer players learn how things work.

Instead of providing examples, which I did above (i think maybe it was not understood that it was just conceptual example, not a specific naming recommendation), here are the core concepts:
1. The name should include all of the relevant fitting information (range, type, meta level)
2. It should be as short as possible.
3. The schema of progressively better/more powerful should be blindingly obvious and totally consistent across all weapon types. It should not require that you first memorize several sub-schema conventions to decipher the top level schema.
4. Flavor text in names is just that, flavor. It doesn't add meaning or clarity. Get rid of it.

I can see how some people might like the old names and be attached to them. However, the reality is that we spend very little time reading the names and savoring their component words. Most of the time that you're looking at mods, your primary concern is fitting, not flavor. Anything that reduces the time we spend fitting instead of fighting is a good thing. Anything that improves the learning curve for noobs is a good thing. Anything that reduces unnecessary complexity is a good thing.