Ships & Modules

Some of the meta stuff, the missile launchers specifically, always made sense to me as different "brands." Like I guess 'Arbalest', 'Malkuth' etc are brands and depending on the size a different manufacturer's weapon might have better performance. I guess it still kinda makes sense that way, just now one of them is a premium brand and always makes the best item instead of them varying a bit.

What throws the "Experimental" and such off is the "1" part. If it was "Upgraded Thing I", "Limited Edition Thing I", "Prototype Thing II", "Experimental Thing II" then that would make more sense to me. (and yes, "Limited" on its own makes me think it should be worse than the basic version, not better).

Either way, I totally support making the names better. I think one of the problems EVE often has is not that it is complicated, but that things are presented in a confusing way. The "20 GW" etc sounds very good to me. I also like the suggestions related to tagging items with their meta level somehow. If that was done then it'd let them keep their weird and unique names while not being confusing.

I've found the new naming schemes really boring so far. And it hasn't yet been too helpful, I still have to check whether experimental or limited 1MN afterburner is the better one before buying it.

I'd guess that easily accessible or even visible meta levels and sorting by meta level where appropriate (markets and such) would achieve almost everything you're trying to get with all this renaming while allowing the flavor to remain.

Often the jump in price from Meta 3 to Meta 4 is not worth the small improvement. Particularly when you are fitting a PVP ship that is likely to be destroyed soon, and the more ISK you spend on fitting it, the worse it looks on your kill board when someone blows it up. So, to respond to your post, that is what Meta 3's are for.

Also, it is not uncommon for meta 3 to have lower fitting requirements than meta 4.

well I like your names better. my point was more make both games follow the same naming convention

Also the implants would be so much easier to find in containers and hangars if you switched around in the name sequence and removed some of the long names...

Putting EG-601 first instead of last would make it so much easier for us

I agree with having a set of names for each group of weapons to define meta level.

The missile launchers work great - malkuth, limos, xx-xxxx, arbalest.
The names are consistent (ish!) across all launchers, make it less excel-in-space and have no inherent meaning.
You learn the order of which ones are best and that's it.

The main problem with limited - upgraded - experimental - prototype is that each word has an implied meaning.
for example, limited could mean special edition (better) or more limited than usual (worse).
Worse still, different people associate different implied meanings, which just makes everyone confused.

Fixing the inconsistencies is the main priority. eg medium lasers are actually small. But sometimes medium as well.
Consistent means it can be learnt. It doesn't necessarily have to be dumbed down as well though.

The easiest type of Turrets to understand are Projectile Turrets. You've got very familiar names on them, like Auto-Cannons and Artillery. No-one is going to get confused about which is the long range and short range category.

Not only that, but you have them split into millimetres which is the standard for modern guns today. A 1400mm Artillery cannon is bigger than a 1200mm. No confusion there.

Laz0rs... laz0rs are a mess. There is no logic it seems. As a Projectile user, I get scared and confused whenever I look them over in the market. There definitely needs to be a "pattern" to naming them. Terms like "Medium" and "Heavy" don't actually mean Medium and Large turrets.

The suggestion of naming them after Watts is a great one because that would work like millimetres for Projectile turrets.

Ahaha, true, true. But that is just one little screw-up. Nothing in comparison to Laz0rs.

Really can't understand what all the fuss is about. Checking the market on TQ shows that weapons are listed pretty much in size and then meta lvl order, so even if the names are really confusing, going for a weapon near the bottom of the list will generally be more damaging than one near the top. The name is irrelevant.

And even if the names don't hint at its meta lvl or what ever, it's a great way for newer players to get introduced to the compare tool and learn about the game they're playing.

No. It's a poorly thought out solution. The focus is one element, when it should be holistic (i.e. looking at the leaves on a tree, missing both the tree and forest). You're trying to solve the naming confusion, under the impression that players/new players find it very difficult to fully grasp - in order to make EVE more accessible (aka helping NPE). The naming scheme for lasers, although the most confusing (out of all the weapon types), can be brought in line with several tweaks. What you have here is not a tweak, it's heavy artillery.

Realize one thing. You're slowly chipping away the intangibles that makes EVE stand out. The intangible in this case is flavour. The standard defensive respond to this is "No, we're not dumming EVE down...we're [add whatever reasons you can come up with]". Whatever the reasons, it really doesn't change the fact that you're homogenizing the names. Flavour will be lost. 10-20 years ago, games we're much more "alive" when compared to nowadays. There are signs now that gamers are preferring old games, from the flurry of game remakes (noticeably in the indie scene) - for example, the original XCom/Fallout ... which garnered huge fans. Why do you think Dwarf Fortress, despite the sheer masochism of its UI/gameplay has a dedicated community following since its inception? It's the flavour. The uncertainty. The surprise. The will to learn more. The fun of discovery.

5-10 years from now (assuming CCP is still alive), EVE will have a new generation of players that lived and breathed on simplistic terms, not knowing nor experiencing the old. Here, you will completely alienate the old community that had built EVE into a solid foundation. You trade a stone foundation with sand. The decline will be insidious and I doubt any of the original founders is fully aware of the possibilities as a result of a small seemingly innocent changes, assuming their interest in EVE hadn't waned over time.




If you're still adamant at homogenizing and using those stupid terms, then I'd suggest a whole new family of terms for weapons.
Yes, weapons only. Get the writing department to come up with terms that are more "weaponish" than the stupid Upgrade, Limited, Experimental, Prototype terms you're using for certain modules.
Then apply that weapons only term across the board to all weapons. You get to keep your consistency. Flavour isn't entirely gone.

Get your writing department to post their Top 5 ideas in the forum and check the responses.
Seriously, it's that simple.




Don't mess around with faction mods. They're fine as is.



Spiral? Wtf? Are you sure you've got a writing department, did they really come up with this?
No, go back to the drawing board and sweat them out until they can produce something acceptable.

Even "Turbo" (aka Small Turbo Pulse Laser I) sounds and looks better than the above. I can also almost guarantee that its meaning isn't lost, when read by players who does not use English as a mother-tongue. That popped into my head without even trying.

Try harder. Sheesh.