These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sphit Ker
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#81 - 2012-08-14 18:28:37 UTC
Gilbaron wrote:

and fix the goddamn "limited" it sounds like "this is a bad thing, dont use it !!"


True.. true... therefore limited = crappy and boring meta 1 nobody cares for? It's "limited", right?

It knows what you think.
Sun Win
#82 - 2012-08-14 18:31:11 UTC
Crassus Detlator wrote:

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


At first I agreed with this, but then I realized that it would break market searches.

When I want a gun for my Punisher, I wanna search for "Small Gatling Pulse" and have it pull all the meta levels. With your proposed tweak, I wouldn't be able to do that because there are :words: between small and gatling.
Sphit Ker
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#83 - 2012-08-14 18:41:01 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
(...) why shouldn't lasers carry their wattage in the name?


This can "take" for as long as you stick to a scale people are already used to. As in, meg, gig and tera. Small, medium and large.

Just saying.

It knows what you think.
Reticle
Sight Picture
#84 - 2012-08-14 18:42:35 UTC
CCP FoxFour wrote:
Jarin Arenos wrote:
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.

Just please, please, PLEASE don't change my target painters to the new system. They're too awesome to be confined by such a limited scheme! (*goes back to fitting PWNAGE*)


Target painters are NOT getting touched. Ever.

That makes no sense. Why rename turret weapons but not other mods? The entire naming system is a joke. You're going to fix some, but not all? Why fix ANY of them? Nothing was broken, just confusing. If you're not going to address the undelrying root of the confusion, why waste the time and resources? Get to work on the UI already.

So here's my updated feedback: do nothing. Direct your efforts to something worthwhile. When will CCP sit down and think of the game in its entirety, rather than this piecemeal thing they've had going?
Dorian Tormak
RBON United
#85 - 2012-08-14 18:45:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Dorian Tormak
Reticle wrote:

2. It should be as short as possible.

No, it should be as 'realistic' as possible. Eve is a massive universe and the idea that there should be only 5 or so simple types of standard-issue blasters all conforming to a similar naming scheme is ridiculous. I thought it was cool the way everything had really long, complicated names in which they sometimes used forgotten, archaic words because it emitted the feeling of a large world with many types of weaponry created by many types of corporations, which is the way it should be. Dumbing it down like this reminds me of the transition from Morrowind to Oblivion to Skyrim where Bethesda has kept dumbing it down and making less and less types of weaponry and using simpler names. It is wrong.

What they should be doing is creating and adding more types of weaponry, more types of ships, and more ship customization. That should be the goal. Why would you even think about changing the names so they are simpler? Who actually cares about that?

Holy Satanic Christ! This is a Goddamn Signature!
Fleet Warpsujarento
Doomheim
#86 - 2012-08-14 18:47:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Fleet Warpsujarento
To quote Machiavelli: "Hence it is to be remarked that, in seizing a state, the usurper ought to examine closely into all those injuries which it is necessary for him to inflict, and to do them all at one stroke so as not to have to repeat them daily; and thus by not unsettling men he will be able to reassure them, and win them to himself by benefits. He who does otherwise, either from timidity or evil advice, is always compelled to keep the knife in his hand; neither can he rely on his subjects, nor can they attach themselves to him, owing to their continued and repeated wrongs. For injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less, they offend less; benefits ought to be given little by little, so that the flavour of them may last longer."

Basically what CCP should do is figure out all the name changes they want to make and then implement them all at once. Within a couple of weeks we'll all get over it and never have to worry about it again. What they're doing now is pushing in one change at a time and annoying people each time. Better to change it all at once and be done with it.
Jace Errata
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#87 - 2012-08-14 18:50:05 UTC
Dorian Tormak wrote:
Reticle wrote:

2. It should be as short as possible.

No, it should be as 'realistic' as possible. Eve is a massive universe and the idea that there should be only 5 or so simple types of standard-issue blasters all conforming to a similar naming scheme is ridiculous. I thought it was cool the way everything had really long, complicated names in which they sometimes used forgotten, archaic words because it emitted the feeling of a large world with many types of weaponry created by many types of corporations, which is the way it should be. Dumbing it down like this reminds me of the transition from Morrowind to Oblivion to Skyrim where Bethesda has kept dumbing it down and making less and less types of weaponry and using simpler names. It is wrong.

What they should be doing is creating and adding more types of weaponry, more types of ships, and more ship customization. That should be the goal. Why would you even think about changing the names so they are simpler? Who actually cares about that?

This.

Oh and also whatever you call the turrets, make sure the in-game models match the names. This is an issue already with most weapon types except blasters and missiles, I believe: most Gatling rails, ACs, and lasers actually aren't, and some Dual weapons aren't, and those Gatling ACs that do look Gatling-y turn out to be just one barrel with a spinny cage around it.

also fix square barrels on artillery plz kthx

tweeten

One day they woke me up so I could live forever

It's such a shame the same will never happen to you
Aamrr
#88 - 2012-08-14 18:53:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Aamrr
I rather like the gigawat convention, but it should probably be abbreviated. 200mm turrets, 50GW lasers, etc.

P.S.: While you're fixing inconsistencies, I don't suppose you could touch up the T2 overclocking rigs? They currently take twice the calibration of their T1 counterparts, instead of 50% more as is the standard for every other rig.
Sudelle
Tir Asleen
#89 - 2012-08-14 18:55:31 UTC
I would think from a game lore standpoint that you wouldn't want all meta levels named the same for all 4 empires. no?

As far as Amarr goes, how about some sort of religious descriptor.

Anointed
Blessed
Holy
Exalted

Put them in whatever order you would like. I just don't see why all the empires would have the same naming philosophy.

Then as far as the guns go, yes those need to be changed. A small medium laser is confusing as all get out. But it would be nice to find some sort of empire theme for them. Gatling doesn't seem very religious.

Maybe something along the lines of

Banishing
Eradicating
Purging

Then put the size in front of it. So you would have

Frigates would have:
Small Banishing Laser I
Small Anointed Banishing Laser I

Cruisers would have:
Medium Banishing Laser I
Medium Exalted Banishing Laser I

Anyway just some feedback and suggestions...
Sun Win
#90 - 2012-08-14 19:02:03 UTC
Sudelle wrote:
Then put the size in front of it. So you would have

Frigates would have:
Small Banishing Laser I
Small Anointed Banishing Laser I

Cruisers would have:
Medium Banishing Laser I
Medium Exalted Banishing Laser I


OH GOD PLEASE DO THIS.
Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
#91 - 2012-08-14 19:08:59 UTC
CCP FoxFour wrote:
Jarin Arenos wrote:
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.

Just please, please, PLEASE don't change my target painters to the new system. They're too awesome to be confined by such a limited scheme! (*goes back to fitting PWNAGE*)


Target painters are NOT getting touched. Ever.

<3

But I'm not CCP Soundwave, so what do I know?
Mac Tir
State War Academy
Caldari State
#92 - 2012-08-14 19:10:40 UTC
I think the naming order is a little off.

Upgraded (meta level 1)
Limited (meta level 2)
Experimental (meta level 3)
Prototype (meta level 4)......?

The order (in my opinion) should run as follows-

Experimental (meta level 1)
Prototype (meta level 2)
Limited (meta level 3)
Uprgraded (meta level 4)

For example: ''We made some experimental railguns, before deciding on the prototype. We then created a limited run for the Gallente Navy, but have already issued an upgraded model for the discerning capsuleer.''


I know this must seem pathetic but.... it just makes more sense. Why would you call the crappest tier of guns upgraded?
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#93 - 2012-08-14 19:16:58 UTC
CCP FoxFour wrote:
...


I understand why you're doing it, but I don't really like it. I preferred the Light/Heavy/etc nomenclature to Small/Med/...

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Sun Win
#94 - 2012-08-14 19:23:45 UTC
Mac Tir wrote:
I think the naming order is a little off.

Upgraded (meta level 1)
Limited (meta level 2)
Experimental (meta level 3)
Prototype (meta level 4)......?

The order (in my opinion) should run as follows-

Experimental (meta level 1)
Prototype (meta level 2)
Limited (meta level 3)
Uprgraded (meta level 4)

For example: ''We made some experimental railguns, before deciding on the prototype. We then created a limited run for the Gallente Navy, but have already issued an upgraded model for the discerning capsuleer.''


I know this must seem pathetic but.... it just makes more sense. Why would you call the crappest tier of guns upgraded?


"Well, it doesn't take much know-how to create an Upgraded version of the standard guns, so we've got those created and they're pretty widely available. We've also made a Limited edition that's better, but not really something we want to see on the mass market. I don't know how our Experimental guns are getting out there, they're powerful sure, but not ready for prime time manufacturing. More worrisome are the Prototype weapons that we see the pirate factions using. Those monsters are nearly as good as Tech 2, but with much lower fitting requirements. The capsuleers love them, and buy them whenever they can."
Ugleb
Jotunn Risi
#95 - 2012-08-14 19:26:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Ugleb
After 8 years of playing eve I have no idea which laser is which other than you have pulse and beam. Please apply the logic!

Although tbh i will be a little sad when the time comes and scout projectiles cone under the knife. Clarity does matter more than quirky names though.

I Di think that terms such as 'light' and heavy is more interesting than 'small' or 'large' when it comes to turrets.

http://uglebsjournal.wordpress.com/

The Jotunn Risi are now recruiting, Brutor ancestry required in order to best represent the Brutor interest.  Join channel JORIS to learn more!
Fleet Warpsujarento
Doomheim
#96 - 2012-08-14 19:34:57 UTC
It would also be nice if the ECMs were renamed as a priority. With them it's hard to tell which race they jam, never mind their meta level.
Bill Serkoff2
Tachyon Technology
#97 - 2012-08-14 19:38:12 UTC
D-don't rename my confusing pew pew

"The Cyclone and the Drake are two ships which will basically never be good for shield tanking, primarily because they have almost no lowslots in addition to shield tanking bonuses. " -Iam Widdershins
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#98 - 2012-08-14 19:42:12 UTC
Sphit Ker wrote:
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
(...) why shouldn't lasers carry their wattage in the name?


This can "take" for as long as you stick to a scale people are already used to. As in, meg, gig and tera. Small, medium and large.

Just saying.


Check the capacitor consumption of the lasers. They're all in the gigajoule range.
Kasutra
No Vacancies
No Vacancies.
#99 - 2012-08-14 19:51:26 UTC
Sudelle wrote:
I would think from a game lore standpoint that you wouldn't want all meta levels named the same for all 4 empires. no?

As far as Amarr goes, how about some sort of religious descriptor.

Anointed
Blessed
Holy
Exalted


This would be hilarious. Misses the point, but hilarious. Gives a whole new meaning to the word "holy light"...
Fleet Warpsujarento
Doomheim
#100 - 2012-08-14 19:52:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Fleet Warpsujarento
Naming lasers after their power (Megawatt, Gigawatt, Terawatt etc) isn't a great idea give that:

A) They already have a power grid usage measured in Megawatts
B)They already have a a Cap consumption value, measured in Gigawatts
C) Their use of both cap and PG changes as skills and rigs are applied.

So you end up with a situation where a Laser's name corresponds to neither its power usage nor its energy cost (and overlaps with both), and doesn't scale with the damage it puts out.