These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sturmwolke
#201 - 2012-08-18 12:27:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Sturmwolke
One more thing, let me illustrate the dissonance between the laser naming confusion and target painters so that you understand a point.
A "name", when properly done creates a sense of ownership (if that makes sense). It invokes a powerful feeling or emotional attachment for the players.

Be aware that there are certain player mindsets that tend to treat them as statistics, mere objects or numbers that need to follow a certain order.
However, by large, I dare say that the majority are humans that appreciates the beauty of a name.

"Scourge" - remember this debacle?

Strip the target painters name and bring it in line with the rest of the common modules that you mangled (especially the prop mods).
Dare you do this? ... if not, WHY? Answer that honestly.

Now do you understand the significance of saving as much as possible the unique names?

P.S. When approaching the issue, do things right for the first time. Leaving room for "iterations" wastes both CCP's time/resources and player feedback (to the point that you won't be getting quality feedback anymore). There's no guarantee that the ball won't get passed around different persons in CCP as you move forward. The poor guy that gets saddled with it won't understand the finer points that goes into the topic, revisiting the same thing like beating a dead horse. Ever called a Technical Support line? How does it feel to get passed around, explaining the same thing all over again for the next guy.
Matriarch Prime
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#202 - 2012-08-18 18:09:45 UTC
I recently came back to the game, and the names are definitely something that is very confusing.

I think using a basic mark system would work better. It is time consuming to figure out if an item is better and in what way. The slot symbols (high, med, low, rig) do a good job of conveying basic item information very quickly to the play. I know I'll probably get a lot of flak for saying this, but other games have already figured out other ways to convey information about items very quickly. Using color for the item item text and icon background, along with a mark system and so long as the convention is standarized, you can really go wild with the "quoted" names modules.

I'll use auto cannons as an example, because I'm a mini, so all I know are guns. :)

125mm Gatling Autocannon
125mm Light Carbide Repeating Autocannon
125mm Light Gallium I Machine Gun
125mm Light Prototype I Automatic Cannon
125mm Light 'Scout' Autocannon I
125mm Gatling Autocannon II
Faction 125mm Autocannon*

There are only two components to that name that convey useful information to me across all those items. "125mm" and "autocannon". Auto cannon tells me it is a projectile turret (so its a high slot item) and 125mm tells me the size, and bigger is usually better if you can fit it.

"Light" is useful since it tells me a whole lot of information about signature resolution and the intended class of ship it is intended to shoot and be equipped to. But it is not consistent.

I think its ok to have the "scout" in there, but the name needs to mean something. And preferably it should say something about the stats. This is where I think color could help a whole lot. But the convention needs to be consistent to mean something. And by that I mean that the convention should work across all items, not just within a subset. The new little symbols help, but they only work for faction, deadspace and tech tiers. And don't get me started on pith-a / gist-x stuff, nothing about those names tells you what is different.

What is different about the "carbide repeating" compared to the "prototype"? Could you put them in order of ascending meta level without peeking at the item info? I can't. I pulled that list off a website.

Lets see what happens when we make a few changes.

125mm Light Autocannon I - white
125mm Light Autocannon I Mk. II - blue
125mm Light Autocannon I Mk. III - purple
125mm Light Autocannon I Mk. IV - red
125mm Light Autocannon I Mk. V - orange
125mm Light Autocannon II - gold
'Faction' 125mm Light Autocannon I - green

You now have redundancy in how the information is conveyed to the user. You see green. You know its faction. You can also tell from the name. You can even tack on the flavor names at the beginning if the mark system sounds too bland like so.

125mm Light Autocannon I - white text
'Carbide' 125mm Light Autocannon I - blue
'Gallium' 125mm Light Autocannon I - purple
'Prototype' 125mm Light Autocannon I - red
'Scout' 125mm Light Autocannon I - orange
125mm Light Autocannon II - gold
'Faction' 125mm Light Autocannon I - green

You lose the redundancy of information. Because each different class of item would have different meta names, unlike the mark system. And you want redundancy for color blind players, since the colors only really help players with regular vision. And things get confusing again. Is the tech 2 item better than the faction item? The tech 2 has a bigger number on the end.

If I were doing it from scratch, I'd go with something like this...

125mm Light Autocannon
130mm Light Autocannon
135mm Light Autocannon
140mm Light Autocannon
145mm Light Autocannon
150mm Light Autocannon
155mm Light Autocannon
...

And this is where it gets tricky. If an item has a bigger number, it should be more effective. If I have a "faction 125 autocannon" that doesn't tell me if the 150mm tech 1 is going to do more damage or not. You should be able to tell at a glance how effective one item is compared to the other. In this convention, all the items would need to be renamed based on their basic effectiveness. And things like tracking would need to scale along with this scheme as well. Bigger = slower all the way up to the point where you jump to artillery, which has a different name, so its ok to reset things a bit and have a new scaling base like it is now. One can easily understand the difference between an autocannon and artillery. Those names convey a lot of information.

And skills would allow higher meta levels to be equipped. Meaning to equip 200mm faction autocannons you would need very heavy skill investment into light autocannons. And for consistancy, higher meta levels would require more fitting requirements. So if you can fit something, you'd know to fit a lower item level. This would also allow greater granularity in ship fitting.

So, um, yeah. Thats my 2 cents. Its not completely thought out, but its a thought.

I like big guns. I can not lie. You other suckas can't deny. When I warp in, with an itty bity sig, with an arty in your face, you get sprung. You want to pull out your debuffs, 'cause you want to loot my stuff...deep, in a worm with nary, an escape but you can't stop staring. 'Cause, Oh crap!, Baby's got Point!
Captain Praxis
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#203 - 2012-08-18 21:52:52 UTC
I'm firmly with Sturmwolke on this (shame I can only give you 1 like per post!).

Please throw away the awful "Limited, Upgraded, Experimental, Prototype" nomenclature you've used for the propulsion modules. I (a fluent English speaker) find these words far more confusing than the original system as the new terms you have chosen are too ambiguous.

The word "limited" could be taken to mean "of limited utility" (as in it isn't very good/useful), or to mean "limited edition" (as in exclusive). As another example "upgraded" is a comparative term - it has no meaning at all by itself. "X is upgraded" tells you nothing as it is missing the all-important information: "upgraded relative to what?".

While the old terms were no less arbitrary, they were at least distinct. Moreover, they told you something about the module - what it was, what powered it, how it worked... The names had imagination and used elements taken from the real-world, which conjured up the idea of a technology that might actually work. The old names added to the sense of reality and immersion in EVE.

For example: A Catalyzed Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thruster is apparently an Arcjet Rocket (a rocket that uses an arcing electrical-discharge to create extra thrust in the propellant) which uses a Cold Gas propellant (perhaps something like Nitrogen or Carbon Dioxide) and also has a Catalyst to improve the rate of whatever reaction takes place when the thruster is fired. Similarly, a Quad LiF Fueled I Booster Rocket sounds like four Lithium Fluoride powered rockets strapped together and gives the sense that it's a much larger item than the Catalyzed Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thruster (which it should be since it's a battleship-sized module).

Granted, the above name does not tell you that it's a frigate-sized, meta 2 microwarp drive, but that small detail could so elegantly have been solved by changing the name to something like "1MN Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet Microwarp Drive" (or if you prefer something shorter, "1MN Cold-Gas Arcjet Microwarp Drive" or even "1MN Arcjet Microwarp Drive").

While I totally agree that calling a frigate-class laser "Medium" is confusing (and needs to be changed), I'd really hate to see a name as evocative as "Focused Anode Pulse Particle Stream I" (a pulsing laser produced by the electron-stream from an anode perhaps?) become something totally bland and lifeless like "Experimental Pulse-Laser I".

Please don't homogenise module names to the point where you strip all the flavour and soul from them (and by extension from the EVE universe itself)!
Katalci
Kismesis
#204 - 2012-08-18 23:15:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Katalci
Please don't make names boring; it ruins the atmosphere of the game for no real advantage beyond making things slightly easier for day-old players. Make a separate meta naming system for each type of module.

Also, I want my Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive back.
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#205 - 2012-08-19 00:02:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Muad 'dib
all this is well and good, but please *pretty pretty* please can you add a "did you mean" thingy like google for the old names to bring up the new modules, in the search boxes in eve.

so if i search for say, regenerative it would come up with "did you mean energized armor layering membrane" and i can find what im looking for.

Took many people many years to learn what everything is called to make the tedious task of .... well playing eve easier and faster, its even more of a challenge to relearn the new names.

Be nice to the vets plz, we put your kids through school CCP :(

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#206 - 2012-08-19 01:06:58 UTC
A color code like a colored bar below each icon for each meta would be pretty cool :-)
As long as it's discrete and colors are selected carefully...
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#207 - 2012-08-19 05:34:16 UTC

Totally off topic.

Description Typo in : Large Group Of Cattle

Quote:
TCattle are domestic animals raised for home use or for profit, whether it be for their meat or dairy products.


http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online/item.php?type_id=2725

Shocked

Where I am.
Kuehnelt
Devoid Privateering
#208 - 2012-08-19 07:03:32 UTC
Captain Praxis wrote:
Granted, the above name does not tell you that it's a frigate-sized, meta 2 microwarp drive, but that small detail could so elegantly have been solved by changing the name to something like "1MN Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet Microwarp Drive" (or if you prefer something shorter, "1MN Cold-Gas Arcjet Microwarp Drive" or even "1MN Arcjet Microwarp Drive").


Or it could be solved by finding where people would wonder what this module is in the interface and noting that it's intended for frigates. With extra columns or with non-column sidebars, with icon adjustments, with mechanically added parenthetical remarks ("Cold-Gas Arcjet Thruster (AB) (small) (best meta)", "Gremlin Rocket (EM)", "Multifrequency S (-50%) (best T1 damage)"). Or add right-click Fill This Slot / Find What Fits to slots in the fitting window which would open the market with some extra filters, and once people are used to that the entire problem just goes away. Or if you added speculative fittings (right-click Fit Mock Module) so that people could fit up a ship and realize that they had the wrong prop mod without even wasting any money or wasting any time traveling to pick mods up.

And these purely UI fixes have a lot of obvious additional benefits.

Changing names isn't the solution, it's the workaround. But it's not even a lazy, easy workaround (due to translations, angry people, getting the names just so, having the nature of the problem require you to change everything in EVE, which you'd rather do bit-by-bit which has its own problems, etc.) It's just the natural first-pass-suggestion from picky people who resent having been ever confused by a mere video game -- it's the name that confused them, so it's the name that must change, and anyone who disagrees is just a jerk who inexplicably resents being confused by name-changes and/or hates rookies, and let's not dwell on the matter.

Captain Praxis wrote:
While I totally agree that calling a frigate-class laser "Medium" is confusing (and needs to be changed)


Bah. It confuses people who don't use small lasers and it confuses them in silly Hu's on first contexts.
minx trader
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#209 - 2012-08-19 11:23:22 UTC
make the game much more easier to play, i will start a sub for my 3 year old daughter
Buzzmong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#210 - 2012-08-19 20:56:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Buzzmong
Matriarch Prime wrote:
[Snip]


You boring, boring person.

While I understand what you're trying to do, flavour is very very very very very important, especially in a game that has lots of items and lots of item types, and your suggestion simply removes all flavour and leaves only a bitter taste in the mouth.
CCP FoxFour
C C P
C C P Alliance
#211 - 2012-08-20 12:14:45 UTC
Implants have fluff, proper names, are easy to search, and have clear progression.

Gatling Small Pulse Laser I
GSPL-01 Afocal Gatling Small Pulse Laser
GSPL-02 Modal Gatling Small Pulse Laser
GSPL-03 Anode Gatling Small Pulse Laser
GSPL-04 Modulated Gatling Small Pulse Laser
Gatling Small Pulse Laser II

I would make Afocal/Modal/Anode/Modulated consistent throughout the Laser section, but it can then be different in the Hybrid section and still make sense.

The order of the words in the names have also been thought out a bit here.
If you know you want a small gatling laser you should be able to search for "gatling small"
If you know you want a small pulse laser you can search for "small pulse laser"
If you want a pulse laser, any size, you can search for "pulse laser"
Of course taking an "I" on the end of your search will give you tech 1 and tech 1 only, and "II" for tech 2.

/thinking more

@CCP_FoxFour // Technical Designer // Team Tech Co

Third-party developer? Check out the official developers site for dev blogs, resources, and more.
Rees Noturana
Red Rock Mining Company
#212 - 2012-08-20 13:33:24 UTC
CCP FoxFour wrote:
Implants have fluff, proper names, are easy to search, and have clear progression.

Gatling Small Pulse Laser I
GSPL-01 Afocal Gatling Small Pulse Laser
GSPL-02 Modal Gatling Small Pulse Laser
GSPL-03 Anode Gatling Small Pulse Laser
GSPL-04 Modulated Gatling Small Pulse Laser
Gatling Small Pulse Laser II

I would make Afocal/Modal/Anode/Modulated consistent throughout the Laser section, but it can then be different in the Hybrid section and still make sense.

The order of the words in the names have also been thought out a bit here.
If you know you want a small gatling laser you should be able to search for "gatling small"
If you know you want a small pulse laser you can search for "small pulse laser"
If you want a pulse laser, any size, you can search for "pulse laser"
Of course taking an "I" on the end of your search will give you tech 1 and tech 1 only, and "II" for tech 2.

/thinking more


A model designation in the front for the low end meta items to better indicate progression with some fluff for color. I like where this is going. Maybe change the model number based on size too in order to add some variety. Medium weapons could be 100, 200, 300, 400. Heavy weapons could be 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300. Too much consistency between different weapon platforms would be boring but consistency within a type, being hybrid, projectile, laser.

Just some thoughts on the numbering. You could come up with a variety of schemes.

_ _
CCP FoxFour
C C P
C C P Alliance
#213 - 2012-08-20 15:03:50 UTC
Rees Noturana wrote:
CCP FoxFour wrote:
Implants have fluff, proper names, are easy to search, and have clear progression.

Gatling Small Pulse Laser I
GSPL-01 Afocal Gatling Small Pulse Laser
GSPL-02 Modal Gatling Small Pulse Laser
GSPL-03 Anode Gatling Small Pulse Laser
GSPL-04 Modulated Gatling Small Pulse Laser
Gatling Small Pulse Laser II

I would make Afocal/Modal/Anode/Modulated consistent throughout the Laser section, but it can then be different in the Hybrid section and still make sense.

The order of the words in the names have also been thought out a bit here.
If you know you want a small gatling laser you should be able to search for "gatling small"
If you know you want a small pulse laser you can search for "small pulse laser"
If you want a pulse laser, any size, you can search for "pulse laser"
Of course taking an "I" on the end of your search will give you tech 1 and tech 1 only, and "II" for tech 2.

/thinking more


A model designation in the front for the low end meta items to better indicate progression with some fluff for color. I like where this is going. Maybe change the model number based on size too in order to add some variety. Medium weapons could be 100, 200, 300, 400. Heavy weapons could be 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300. Too much consistency between different weapon platforms would be boring but consistency within a type, being hybrid, projectile, laser.

Just some thoughts on the numbering. You could come up with a variety of schemes.


Thank you for the feedback. I shall continue to think about this some more while working on other things. :)

@CCP_FoxFour // Technical Designer // Team Tech Co

Third-party developer? Check out the official developers site for dev blogs, resources, and more.
Justin Cody
War Firm
#214 - 2012-08-20 15:31:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Justin Cody
CCP FoxFour wrote:
Professor Clio wrote:
Spriral sounds weird, but other than that, more logic in naming conventions is great. I always thought that whoever came up with these names did it to confuse new players :/


Yea, I am neither for nor against it. The last thread that talked about lasers and their names had a lot of people saying that if anything changed that should be one of the things so I was testing it.



Actually I thought all the different names were good flavor and caused one to actually think and perhaps even... "show info" on the weapon. Being a new player shouldn't mean being a willfully ignorant player. But it doesn't matter what I say at this point as it is already happening.
Reticle
Sight Picture
#215 - 2012-08-20 16:23:00 UTC
CCP FoxFour wrote:
Implants have fluff, proper names, are easy to search, and have clear progression.

Gatling Small Pulse Laser I
GSPL-01 Afocal Gatling Small Pulse Laser
GSPL-02 Modal Gatling Small Pulse Laser
GSPL-03 Anode Gatling Small Pulse Laser
GSPL-04 Modulated Gatling Small Pulse Laser
Gatling Small Pulse Laser II

I would make Afocal/Modal/Anode/Modulated consistent throughout the Laser section, but it can then be different in the Hybrid section and still make sense.

The order of the words in the names have also been thought out a bit here.
If you know you want a small gatling laser you should be able to search for "gatling small"
If you know you want a small pulse laser you can search for "small pulse laser"
If you want a pulse laser, any size, you can search for "pulse laser"
Of course taking an "I" on the end of your search will give you tech 1 and tech 1 only, and "II" for tech 2.

/thinking more

2 things:
1. The numbering (gspl-01 etc) is great. Its also all you need. the rest of the name is is pure, unadulterated fluff. Get rid of it.
2. Why would you want to institute a naming convention (afocal etc) that denotes different meta level for another weapon system? I can only think of one reason, intentional confusion. That's just silly.
Reppyk
The Black Shell
#216 - 2012-08-20 16:32:33 UTC
/ ! \

I don't know if someone already said it, I skipped some posts.

My Friend Pisov got a much better idea for this meta name mess.

Atm we have, in the corner of every module/ship, a little picto which shows the meta category.
You know, that sweet orange corner claiming that you're using T2 guns.

Why not making another "corner" showing directly the meta level ?
Noobs will identify immediatly what's best between 2 meta modules (well, sometimes meta 3 > meta 4 but only EFT-warriors need to know it). And you could keep the fancy meta names we already have.


...

Oh, and use another corner for the size of the module. Medium rigs with a "M", 1400mm howitzers with a "L", etc.

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#217 - 2012-08-20 17:37:29 UTC
CCP FoxFour wrote:
Implants have fluff, proper names, are easy to search, and have clear progression.

Gatling Small Pulse Laser I
GSPL-01 Afocal Gatling Small Pulse Laser
GSPL-02 Modal Gatling Small Pulse Laser
GSPL-03 Anode Gatling Small Pulse Laser
GSPL-04 Modulated Gatling Small Pulse Laser
Gatling Small Pulse Laser II

I would make Afocal/Modal/Anode/Modulated consistent throughout the Laser section, but it can then be different in the Hybrid section and still make sense.

The order of the words in the names have also been thought out a bit here.
If you know you want a small gatling laser you should be able to search for "gatling small"
If you know you want a small pulse laser you can search for "small pulse laser"
If you want a pulse laser, any size, you can search for "pulse laser"
Of course taking an "I" on the end of your search will give you tech 1 and tech 1 only, and "II" for tech 2.

/thinking more


I love it!

Bear

Where I am.
Captain Praxis
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#218 - 2012-08-20 18:17:25 UTC
CCP FoxFour wrote:
Implants have fluff, proper names, are easy to search, and have clear progression.

Gatling Small Pulse Laser I
GSPL-01 Afocal Gatling Small Pulse Laser
GSPL-02 Modal Gatling Small Pulse Laser
GSPL-03 Anode Gatling Small Pulse Laser
GSPL-04 Modulated Gatling Small Pulse Laser
Gatling Small Pulse Laser II

I would make Afocal/Modal/Anode/Modulated consistent throughout the Laser section, but it can then be different in the Hybrid section and still make sense.

The order of the words in the names have also been thought out a bit here.
If you know you want a small gatling laser you should be able to search for "gatling small"
If you know you want a small pulse laser you can search for "small pulse laser"
If you want a pulse laser, any size, you can search for "pulse laser"
Of course taking an "I" on the end of your search will give you tech 1 and tech 1 only, and "II" for tech 2.

/thinking more


I like the thought that has gone into the word order of "gatling small pulse laser" in these names to enable multiple search types.

As for the GSPL-01, -02, -03, -04 part ... ugh Ugh

I don't really feel that there's anything wrong with simply using the terms "Afocal", "Modal", "Anode" and "Modulated" to differentiate between the meta-level lasers (and to denote them as being meta 1-4 instead of T1, T2 Officer, and so on).

If you don't remember which is which then there is always show info or the compare tool to give you the answer - why does the information also have to be there in the item name? If you take this line of reasoning further (playing devil's advocate here), why is it not necessary to include a module's optimal/falloff range, damage multiplier, fitting requirements and other stats in the name? Just to be clear, I don't want to see that either!

It seems that the problem you're trying to solve is making it easy to see which modules are "better" than others (which is pretty subjective since what is better in a given situation may not necessarily be the module with the highest meta-level), but I think that altering the names is approaching it the wrong way.

A much better alternative would be to have something like an addition to the icon (like the T2 'tag'), additional columns in the market window or something along those lines.
Reppyk
The Black Shell
#219 - 2012-08-20 18:33:38 UTC
Captain Praxis wrote:
A much better alternative would be to have something like an addition to the icon (like the T2 'tag')
That's what I said ! Sad

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !
Sturmwolke
#220 - 2012-08-20 19:04:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Sturmwolke
CCP FoxFour wrote:
Post# 211


While acceptable (personal preference aside), I'm not convinced it's the best solution for lasers. Check the example :

Gatling Small Pulse Laser I
Class D Afocal Gatling Small Pulse Laser
Class C Modal Gatling Small Pulse Laser
Class B Anode Gatling Small Pulse Laser
Class A Modulated Gatling Small Pulse Laser
Gatling Small Pulse Laser II

The above sounds much more natural and it's based on the deadspace mods progression (which is familiar) and appropiates the unique "Class" word as a weapon term that applies to lasers ONLY.
You can, from there, easily build up the laser family into a logical system with the proper consistency without mangling the flavour.

The important thing is, each weapon type, should have their own series. Their own tree. Don't try to homogenize and apply the same naming convention across for all weapon types when all you needed to do in order solve the progression problem and eliminate confusion - is a minor tweak.

Tbh, I get an apoplexy looking at the shared terms that you're currently using for the prop mods, shield and armor mods etc. .... and you know what? I still bring up the detailed info page because I can never remember the differences between Upgraded vs Limited for example. The prop mods especially, were EASY to distinguish with the iconic Y-T8 and Y-S9 prefix (and the choice was limited to no more than 3 different meta) .... but no, someone at CCP decided they were clever and changed that to what it is now. What issue exactly were they trying to solve I wonder?

Edit:
As for personal preference, I'd just use a simple :

Gatling Small Pulse Laser I
Afocal Gatling Small Pulse Laser
Modal Gatling Small Pulse Laser
Anode Gatling Small Pulse Laser
Modulated Gatling Small Pulse Laser
Gatling Small Pulse Laser II

Players will learn to associate "Modulated" as Meta4 for lasers if you keep the term unique to lasers only**. Also use the UI to denote visual clues on the Meta1-4.
** you'll need to solve the cross-over of terms between lasers and hybrids. One gets to keep it, the other will need a new creation.