These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Odyssey 1.1] Skill group name changes

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#521 - 2013-08-07 12:29:09 UTC
please change mechanics and hull upgrades .. they don't explain what they are and is hard to remember the difference..

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Frenjo Borkstar
Doomheim
#522 - 2013-08-07 14:53:50 UTC
Things don't need to be changed, they are perfectly fine, and not everyone that plays eve is in need of things being "dumbed down", as for Armor Layering, NO WAY, armor honeycombing is pretty good. Things have been this way for 10 years, don't change them now and get everybody confused.

Viriel,

Borkstar Laboratories,

The Borkstar Initiative.
Mongo Edwards
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#523 - 2013-08-07 15:57:48 UTC
Capacitor Emission Systems and Capital Capacitor Emission Systems sounds kind of silly. A capacitor is a peice of hardware used to store energy. The modules requiring the skills transfer giga joules (energy) to another ship not the hardware used to store the energy.

Please leave the skills named Energy Emission Systems and Capital Energy Emission Systems as it is more descriptive of what they effect.
Magnus Coleus
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#524 - 2013-08-07 18:29:04 UTC
Moneta Curran wrote:
he rightly pointed out that taking the time to understand what you put in the skill queue is an absolutely trivial thing.


Not sure how you get "he rightly pointed out [anything]" when all the post says is this:

Rafael Tonka wrote:
Dumbing down the game for the less mentally agile yet again?


Correcting ambiguous terms is not "dumbing down", it's improving the interface (or documentation, etc.). It's precisely the "less mentally agile" people who oppose any change (even when it makes the terminology more concise) because it means they will have to learn something new.
Magnus Coleus
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#525 - 2013-08-07 18:32:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Magnus Coleus
Mongo Edwards wrote:
Capacitor Emission Systems and Capital Capacitor Emission Systems sounds kind of silly. A capacitor is a peice of hardware used to store energy. The modules requiring the skills transfer giga joules (energy) to another ship not the hardware used to store the energy.

Please leave the skills named Energy Emission Systems and Capital Energy Emission Systems as it is more descriptive of what they effect.


I agree "capacitor emission" sounds a bit weird, but you are effectively emitting energy from a capacitor to another capacitor, not to or from the energy grid, so the term needs to make that clear.

I would suggest something like "Remote Capacitor Charging".

Part of the problem was CCP's decision to have two different types of "energy" in the game (the grid and the capacitor), but unless they change the game mechanics themselves, they have to pick terms that are as unambiguous as possible (remember the game gets translated into several languages, and it can get even more confusing for those players, if the translator couldn't figure out which game element the original term referred to).
Magnus Coleus
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#526 - 2013-08-07 18:56:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Magnus Coleus
Siresa Talesi wrote:
Show me the dictionary that lists "targeting" as a noun.

DOD DoMT, Joint Education and Doctrine Division, J-7 wrote:

targeting (n.)
The process of selecting and prioritizing targets and matching the appropriate response to them, considering operational requirements and capabilities. See also joint targeting coordination board; target.

That's from the DOD Dictionary of Military Terms (which anyone who's served in the US probably came across at some point). Authoritative and appropriate enough for ya? I can also show you military manuals with entire chapters dedicated to "the targeting of" various things. Wouldn't be surprised if there are even some parts about "multi-targeting" (which is really just a better-sounding abbreviation of "multiple targeting").

Maybe English isn't your first language, but no native speaker has any doubt that "targeting", "opening", or hundreds of other words ending in "ing" can be nouns. Heard of Shakespeare? He wrote "The Taming of the Shrew". I guess that illiterate oaf didn't know that "taming" isn't a noun...

Now please stop spamming about "bad grammer" (or at least learn to spell "grammar").

CCP admitted it sounded bad and changed the term about five pages ago, anyway.
jwingender
Tar Valon Research and Development
#527 - 2013-08-07 19:27:57 UTC
Chris Winter wrote:

"Armor layering" implies adding armor, which isn't what the skill does.
"Armor honeycombing" implies making the armor lighter, which is exactly what the skill does.

Not sure why you need to change that one...


Totally agree. Layering is counter-intuitive with what the skill actually does. Another change to get reversed later...
Roll
Mongo Edwards
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#528 - 2013-08-07 20:26:03 UTC
They could also just change the "Energy Grid Upgrades" skill to "Power Grid Upgrades" it seems to fit better with what the skill actually does.
CW Itovuo
The Executioners
#529 - 2013-08-08 03:28:01 UTC



How many times did CCP change the names of Missiles to make the game moar bettah? Yeah. Brilliant.


Just leave the skill names as they are.


Changing them is counter productive to the hundreds of people who maintain webpages.

Moneta Curran
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#530 - 2013-08-08 07:03:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Moneta Curran
Magnus Coleus wrote:
Moneta Curran wrote:
he rightly pointed out that taking the time to understand what you put in the skill queue is an absolutely trivial thing.


Not sure how you get "he rightly pointed out [anything]" when all the post says is this:

Rafael Tonka wrote:
Dumbing down the game for the less mentally agile yet again?


Correcting ambiguous terms is not "dumbing down", it's improving the interface (or documentation, etc.). It's precisely the "less mentally agile" people who oppose any change (even when it makes the terminology more concise) because it means they will have to learn something new.




Again, look up reading comprehension. I was offering an exposition of the crux of his statement.

You are misreading our objections. It's not learning new, purposely self-explanatory names that is the issue here.

The main objection, at least on my part, is that the alternatives offered for the current skill names range from cringe worthy to absolutely Яetarded.
Magnus Coleus
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#531 - 2013-08-08 07:52:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Magnus Coleus
Moneta Curran wrote:
I was offering an exposition of the crux of his statement.

Thanks for the chuckle.

Moneta Curran wrote:
the alternatives offered for the current skill names range from cringe worthy to absolutely Яetarded.

So, tell me, renaming "Nanite Control" (a skill that affects boosters, and not nanite paste use) to "Neurotoxin Control"... is that "cringe worthy" or "absolutely Яetarded" ?

What about changing "Energy Management" (which affects your capacitor, and not your energy grid) to "Capacitor Management"? "Cringe worthy" or "absolutely Яetarded" ?

What about "Rigging" for the group that contains rigging skills? What about "Neural Enhancement" for the group that contains skills related to boosters and implants? Where do those fall in your scale? And so on...

I'm just trying to get to the crux of your carefully thought-out and highly productive rating system.
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#532 - 2013-08-08 08:29:32 UTC
Glad Spaceship Command is back. Changes look mostly sensible except armor layering which as pointed out above sounds like it adds armor. Armor Honeycombing is a better name.
Balzac Legazou
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#533 - 2013-08-08 08:45:07 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
please change mechanics and hull upgrades .. they don't explain what they are and is hard to remember the difference..


The problem there is that "Hull Upgrades" actually improves armor (and also allows you to install lots of different upgrades, some armor-related, some not), while "Mechanics" improves structure (which in some places is called "hull"), and is also required for some very different modules (some armor-related, some not).

Simply changing the names won't really fix the problem(s). The reason why it's hard to remember which is which is that they both overlap in many places.

And if they can't fix it properly, they might as well keep the current names.
Moneta Curran
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#534 - 2013-08-08 09:04:37 UTC
Magnus Coleus wrote:
So, tell me, renaming "Nanite Control" (a skill that affects boosters, and not nanite paste use) to "Neurotoxin Control"... is that "cringe worthy" or "absolutely Яetarded" ?


Neither. That's one of the few exceptions that proves the rule. It actually makes sense.

Magnus Coleus wrote:
What about changing "Energy Management" (which affects your capacitor, and not your energy grid) to "Capacitor Management"? "Cringe worthy" or "absolutely Яetarded" ?


Cringe worthy. I'm not sure why anyone would think that the power grid is involved here.
Why should we cater to those who can't be arsed to read the skill descriptions? You cannot fix stupid anyway.

Magnus Coleus wrote:
What about "Rigging" for the group that contains rigging skills? What about "Neural Enhancement" for the group that contains skills related to boosters and implants? Where do those fall in your scale? And so on...


I can point out a dumb suggestion for every remotely sensible one you have cherry-picked here. There's just no real need to change these either. It's a waste of development time. So, bearing in mind the bigger picture, it's Яetarded.
Siresa Talesi
Doomheim
#535 - 2013-08-08 19:34:24 UTC
Magnus Coleus wrote:
Siresa Talesi wrote:
Show me the dictionary that lists "targeting" as a noun.

DOD DoMT, Joint Education and Doctrine Division, J-7 wrote:

targeting (n.)
The process of selecting and prioritizing targets and matching the appropriate response to them, considering operational requirements and capabilities. See also joint targeting coordination board; target.

That's from the DOD Dictionary of Military Terms (which anyone who's served in the US probably came across at some point). Authoritative and appropriate enough for ya? I can also show you military manuals with entire chapters dedicated to "the targeting of" various things. Wouldn't be surprised if there are even some parts about "multi-targeting" (which is really just a better-sounding abbreviation of "multiple targeting").

Maybe English isn't your first language, but no native speaker has any doubt that "targeting", "opening", or hundreds of other words ending in "ing" can be nouns. Heard of Shakespeare? He wrote "The Taming of the Shrew". I guess that illiterate oaf didn't know that "taming" isn't a noun...

Now please stop spamming about "bad grammer" (or at least learn to spell "grammar").

CCP admitted it sounded bad and changed the term about five pages ago, anyway.


Actually, I've served in the military enough to know that they are hardly any sort of authority on proper English. Some of the terms and phrases they come up with are downright ridiculous and would be laughed at by any high school English teacher. Besides, I've referenced the DOD Dictionary of Military Terms on multiple official military sites, and no copy I've seen includes the (n.) designation; so I can only assume that you added that yourself.

Include a reference from a respected and known English dictionary; Websters, Rogets, etc., someone whose business it actually is to set the standards of the English language.

I never claimed that words ending in "ing" couldn't be nouns, only that "targeting" specifically is a verb in the case in which it was used.

Again, CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!!! Context will always determine the form fo the word. In the skill names, the name "Multiple Targeting" was specifically given to describe the action of acquiring multiple targets; in this case there should be no question that the use of targeting here is a verb.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#536 - 2013-08-09 00:02:09 UTC
Siresa Talesi wrote:
Magnus Coleus wrote:
Siresa Talesi wrote:
Show me the dictionary that lists "targeting" as a noun.

DOD DoMT, Joint Education and Doctrine Division, J-7 wrote:

targeting (n.)
The process of selecting and prioritizing targets and matching the appropriate response to them, considering operational requirements and capabilities. See also joint targeting coordination board; target.

That's from the DOD Dictionary of Military Terms (which anyone who's served in the US probably came across at some point). Authoritative and appropriate enough for ya? I can also show you military manuals with entire chapters dedicated to "the targeting of" various things. Wouldn't be surprised if there are even some parts about "multi-targeting" (which is really just a better-sounding abbreviation of "multiple targeting").

Maybe English isn't your first language, but no native speaker has any doubt that "targeting", "opening", or hundreds of other words ending in "ing" can be nouns. Heard of Shakespeare? He wrote "The Taming of the Shrew". I guess that illiterate oaf didn't know that "taming" isn't a noun...

Now please stop spamming about "bad grammer" (or at least learn to spell "grammar").

CCP admitted it sounded bad and changed the term about five pages ago, anyway.


Actually, I've served in the military enough to know that they are hardly any sort of authority on proper English. Some of the terms and phrases they come up with are downright ridiculous and would be laughed at by any high school English teacher. Besides, I've referenced the DOD Dictionary of Military Terms on multiple official military sites, and no copy I've seen includes the (n.) designation; so I can only assume that you added that yourself.

Include a reference from a respected and known English dictionary; Websters, Rogets, etc., someone whose business it actually is to set the standards of the English language.

I never claimed that words ending in "ing" couldn't be nouns, only that "targeting" specifically is a verb in the case in which it was used.

Again, CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!!! Context will always determine the form fo the word. In the skill names, the name "Multiple Targeting" was specifically given to describe the action of acquiring multiple targets; in this case there should be no question that the use of targeting here is a verb.

Target is a noun and a verb. being a verb allows you to add "-ing" to it which shows that it is an immediate or continuous action. so while it isn't a standalone word in the dictionary it's still legitimate English. there you go. back to the topic at hand.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#537 - 2013-08-09 00:05:08 UTC
I'm surprised that a simple clean-up like this got so much rage.
Garth Pollard
Automelian Syndicate
#538 - 2013-08-09 00:39:34 UTC
Siresa Talesi wrote:


Include a reference from a respected and known English dictionary; Websters, Rogets, etc., someone whose business it actually is to set the standards of the English language.



Should be pointed out that there is no such thing as an "authority" that decides what is and is not "proper" english. All Websters et. al. do is to record how words appear to be used, and what contexts they are in, but they are by no means exhaustive and it is not their job to "set the standards" of a varied, living language, only to act as recorders and historians.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#539 - 2013-08-09 00:43:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
Garth Pollard wrote:
Should be pointed out that there is no such thing as an "authority" that decides what is and is not "proper" english.

I think the grammar Nazis would freak if they realized they had no Furher

e: Is the term for the ruling party of the German government during WW2 really not allowed here? wtf
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
#540 - 2013-08-09 07:44:15 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Rommiee wrote:
My God.....CCP, what is WRONG with you people ?

This is completely pointless and adds nothing. Why don’t you spend your time fixing stuff that is broken, and not just sit there trying to thinking up the next pointless thing to do.

FFS fix broken stuff before messing with things that DO NOT need fixing.

Jeez.

who the hell pissed in your cheerios? it probably took like 20 minutes to do this, and it has no negative impact so quit whining.


Well that's 20 minutes they could have spent fixing broken stuff, not doing pointless **** like this.