These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Module Tiericide. Aren't we losing something here?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
ElSuerte Diego
Los Perros Hermanos
#61 - 2014-09-26 23:57:26 UTC
I'll miss the naming conventions, but my main concern is that they didn't make player created items more relevant.

As the module tiericide plan stands now, there is simply no reason to use t1 m0 items, just like before, because the mods looted from npc's still receive a general buff over the m0 player made items. IMO, that is antithetical to the spirit of the EVE player driven economy.

Ideally, the new meta mods should just be specialized versions of the m0 mod. They shouldn't receive a general buff on top of the specialization.
Jon Joringer
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#62 - 2014-09-27 00:28:18 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Jon Joringer wrote:
Module teircide is a great idea -- having different modules of the same type actually have uses is awesome. But I do agree that the naming convention is just going to be bland. Surely there is a way to work these new 'catch words' into the existing, more interesting and unique names.

Example: Focused Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor, as opposed to Focused Stasis Webifier (along side a whole slew of other 'Stasis Webifiers'). One remains interesting, one does not. Shouldn't be too hard to keep the unique module names in the game.

So when I search the market for stasis webifier to look at my options, it doesn't come up in the search.....
Bad design
I wouldn't be against Focused 'Fleeting' stasis webifier.
Keeping the current 'name' in the new name still, but I shouldn't have to memorise variant names for a stasis webifier just to find them in a search.

I don't really see the issue. The market is already subdivided into module types for that very reason. If you want to see all types of stasis webifiers, just expand the web tree. I suppose the search feature could be updated to bring up module trees if it's really that much of a hassle for people (i.e. type in stasis web and click module type box and be taken to the same list that you could have just expanded manually).

It's really not a huge issue, but I'll be sad if all of our interesting module names just become bland and formulaic. Might as well call ships Minmatar Combat Cruiser, Minmatar Attack Cruiser, etc, too. That makes it easier for newbros to understand, too, right?
Morihei Akachi
Doomheim
#63 - 2014-09-27 00:43:50 UTC
I'm more or less in favour of changing the module stats, I guess, but I can see no reason to change the names to something as generic and boring as the suggestions currently on the table. Having different and interesting names for modules has been an aspect of immersion I've personally really enjoyed. Sure, you curse that "limited" and "upgraded" mean different meta levels for MWDs and ABs, but after a while you chuckle and are secretly proud of yourself that you've mastered even this little inconsistency in the game. And that's the point: it's interesting complexity, like learning off all the names of the kings of Numenor or the dates of the emperors of Rome. (Did the first once, never quite managed the second.) It contributes to that odd sense of competence and satisfaction that is surely a not inconsiderable part of what attracts us to Eve and keeps us playing.

"Enduring", "restrained" and "ample" as designations for starship components are foreign to the genre of high-tech science fiction and don’t belong in Eve Online. (And as for “scoped” …)
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#64 - 2014-09-27 02:16:35 UTC
I haven't read the dev blog yet. Will go do that now. One of the things that really got me hooked on EvE is that there was so much incredibly confusing stuff. It's like the real world. Some products are better and more expensive, some are more expensive but not actually better, some are cheaper and better, some are cheaper and worse.

I always felt like this aspect of a player-driven economy was really cool. It was a challenge to learn however many years ago, and it's cool to understand now.

I suspect I'll feel unhappy based on what I'm reading here. But I'm reserving an opinion until later. For now, I think it feels more right and more real for there to be lots of confusing options to understand.

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
Kousaka Otsu Shigure
#65 - 2014-09-27 08:23:58 UTC
For me, this is kinda like the 'we don't want round reticles, bring back the square ones!'

The (possibly) one less click/mouseover to know what an object would do, is always a good UI feature for me. Change it! Change everything! Adapt or Die!

Archiver, Software Developer and Data Slave

Current Project Status: What can I make with these minerals?
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#66 - 2014-09-27 08:48:59 UTC
Remember YT-8 Overcharged MWDs. Still missing you, my old prop mod buddy. RIP.

Soon, we will see the end of the C5-L Shield Boosters, FS-9 Shield Extenders, 'Accommodation' Vestment Reconstructors, 'Solace' Remote Armor Repairers, Peroxide Capacitor Power Cells, and Unstable Power Fluctuators.

Yeah, this is not the first time CCP's renaming of modules has been brought into question regarding easier but unoriginal versus more unique and interesting names. Also, still don't get the whole "Invulnerability Field" becomes "Adaptive Invulnerability Field". Just seems like a bigger mouthful for the sake of making it sound more like an armor module; in other words, I still think this is more confusing than easier to read.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#67 - 2014-09-27 08:53:18 UTC
ElSuerte Diego wrote:
I'll miss the naming conventions, but my main concern is that they didn't make player created items more relevant.

As the module tiericide plan stands now, there is simply no reason to use t1 m0 items, just like before, because the mods looted from npc's still receive a general buff over the m0 player made items. IMO, that is antithetical to the spirit of the EVE player driven economy.

Ideally, the new meta mods should just be specialized versions of the m0 mod. They shouldn't receive a general buff on top of the specialization.


^ This. I had hoped that the mod tiericide would do just that. Alas, I get to simply reaffirm my old saying, "Hope for the best, but expect the worst."

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#68 - 2014-09-27 09:16:12 UTC
ISD Ezwal wrote:
I can earnestly say it would be a sad day if they where to change these names:


Sad

We're relying on you to ban Fozzie when he posts the target painter tiericide thread.

Please don't let us down.
Priscilla Project
Doomheim
#69 - 2014-09-27 09:25:44 UTC
I miss the Y-10 10mn Aterburner.
Most epic piece of hardware to put on a rifter!
Not even sure anymore that was called that way. -.-'

I guess this mea s they will kill the yf-12 smartbombs too.....
  • All incoming connection attempts are being blocked. If you want to speak to me you will find me either in Hek local, you can create a contract or make a thread about it in General Discussions. I will call you back. -
Lady Spank
Get Out Nasty Face
#70 - 2014-09-27 09:42:04 UTC
Let's simplify eve by:

1. Removing choice and making eve ships fits even more homogenised.
2. Oh you need 1CPU more on your fitting*? Sorry, we removed that tier 3 scram because it was making Eve too complicated to keep it in the item database. (*Which is quite common on a lot of frigate fits).
3. Needlessly renaming modules so you have to relearn them.
4. Removing cultural variety between the 4 races (LOL RP, if you like).

I'd like to think CCP will reconsider this change but it's unlikely despite what it represents for the future of the game.

(ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)
Lady Spank
Get Out Nasty Face
#71 - 2014-09-27 09:44:11 UTC
Kousaka Otsu Shigure wrote:
For me, this is kinda like the 'we don't want round reticles, bring back the square ones!'

The (possibly) one less click/mouseover to know what an object would do, is always a good UI feature for me. Change it! Change everything! Adapt or Die!


Except it has the opposite effect since you need to relearn the new module names AND figure out which of the varieties of modules they decided to keep because they boiled down varied modules into just one.

(ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)
Priscilla Project
Doomheim
#72 - 2014-09-27 10:24:03 UTC
Lady Spank wrote:
Let's simplify eve by:

1. Removing choice and making eve ships fits even more homogenised.
2. Oh you need 1CPU more on your fitting*? Sorry, we removed that tier 3 scram because it was making Eve too complicated to keep it in the item database. (*Which is quite common on a lot of frigate fits).
3. Needlessly renaming modules so you have to relearn them.
4. Removing cultural variety between the 4 races (LOL RP, if you like).

I'd like to think CCP will reconsider this change but it's unlikely despite what it represents for the future of the game.

Hey ... this actually makes sense to be brought up in Jita too ...........................
  • All incoming connection attempts are being blocked. If you want to speak to me you will find me either in Hek local, you can create a contract or make a thread about it in General Discussions. I will call you back. -
Jandice Ymladris
Aurora Arcology
#73 - 2014-09-27 11:05:45 UTC
I get the idea behind the Module Tiericide, reducing the clutter of all the various modules & put a system in it. Part of the flavor for fitting will go lost, that's sadly a given.
But in return, this tiericide could make Meta modules open for player creation, blueprints & such as they're more consistent now. It would also help in introducing new variants of modules with themes (by example, caldari modules use less CPU & Minmatar Modules would use less powergrid etc etc)

What I am against is the bland naming schedule of the new tiericide modules. While names in itself don't mean much, they do help in improving immersion & enjoyment of the game. It's just more fun firing 'prototype' guns or 'XT-2800' launchers then firing 'ample' and 'compact' weapons.
The blandness of the new names does take away a bit of the fun sci-fi feeling of EVE in my opinion.

Some module lines do need name simplification (especially in the engineering department, some modules vary wildly without even hinting about it in names).
I do agree with the 'simplification' assessment that all modules of the same line should carry the same name + some extension to differ them, but please make the extension sound better then 'ample' or 'compact'
A 'Prototype' Blaster by example still carries home the message that it is a blaster that is amplified compared to the normal 'Blaster'.

Providing a new home for refugees in the Aurora Arcology
Seneca Auran
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#74 - 2014-09-27 11:18:33 UTC
Kaivar Lancer wrote:
I support module tiercide. It would actually make meta 1-3 modules useful.

I also support changing the names of meta modules. When I first started, I thought 'prototype' cannons were crap. Ya know, because they were prototypes, and not the real thing. I wonder how many newbies made the same mistake of swapping meta 4s for crappy T1 modules because of their names.


Or perhaps it would be more constructive to induct newbros into the mysteries of the 'show information' button, and teach them how to decipher the esoteric symbols of the 'attributes tab'.

Jennifer Maxwell
Crimson Serpent Syndicate
#75 - 2014-09-27 14:54:55 UTC
Lady Spank wrote:
Let's simplify eve by:

1. Removing choice and making eve ships fits even more homogenised.
2. Oh you need 1CPU more on your fitting*? Sorry, we removed that tier 3 scram because it was making Eve too complicated to keep it in the item database. (*Which is quite common on a lot of frigate fits).
3. Needlessly renaming modules so you have to relearn them.
4. Removing cultural variety between the 4 races (LOL RP, if you like).

I'd like to think CCP will reconsider this change but it's unlikely despite what it represents for the future of the game.

You made a point I wanted to bring up but forgot.

Consolidating down modules will eventually lead to quite a few fitting changes needing to be made to our ships, because of that exact reason. For frigate and destroyer pilots, this is really gonna hit hard.

I know at least four people who, once they actually understand whats happening, are gonna be royally pissed.
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
Goonswarm Federation
#76 - 2014-09-27 16:02:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Eugene Kerner
Every loss in diversity makes EVE look like every other mediocre MMO out there. The real deal in EVE was always that there is so much diversity....choices, consequences, putting some thought to what you are actually doing.
Not everything needs to have a purpose for everyone in this game.
I really Do not need a black monolith in space but to know that it is out there somewhere is satisfying.
To sacrifice the diversity for the sake of simplyfication will turn players away. Sure, dumb fucks may find a protected environment to enfold and EVE probably even gains some One-time subs but long term costumers (the ones that buy plex for cash) will just be disgusted.

TunDraGon is recruiting! "Also, your boobs [:o] "   CCP Eterne, 2012 "When in doubt...make a diȼk joke." Robin Williams - RIP
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#77 - 2014-09-27 16:07:56 UTC
While I don't really like losing the named modules, and they certainly could have done a better job on the names of the items replacing them, my actual problem with this is quite different. ( "Ample"? "Scoped"? This isn't Borderlands, yeesh )

Namely, it does nothing to address the problem of T1(and Faction to a lesser extent) lasers remaining entirely useless.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Kaivar Lancer
Doomheim
#78 - 2014-09-27 16:57:39 UTC
Seneca Auran wrote:


Or perhaps it would be more constructive to induct newbros into the mysteries of the 'show information' button, and teach them how to decipher the esoteric symbols of the 'attributes tab'.



Adding unnecessary tabs / clicks is just poor design. The name of the module should describe it's function and quality. Maybe add an information tab that provides some lore.
Priscilla Project
Doomheim
#79 - 2014-09-27 16:59:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Priscilla Project
Kaivar Lancer wrote:
Seneca Auran wrote:


Or perhaps it would be more constructive to induct newbros into the mysteries of the 'show information' button, and teach them how to decipher the esoteric symbols of the 'attributes tab'.



Adding unnecessary tabs / clicks is just poor design. The name of the module should describe it's function and quality. Maybe add an information tab that provides some lore.
No.

That's an extremely shallow and cold approach to it. With that logic,
CCP could just rename everything to the bland **** they are planning on doing right now.

Just because you lack any depth or interest in it,
it doesn't mean that nobody else does or that it's not actually important.

This is exactly the same as it is in reallife. Literally everything has some sort of name attached to it,
because it helps people make a connection. It's a selling point. It adds depth.

It's the same thing in this game and CCP lacks understanding of the matter
and rather wants to turn everything into the same cold, bland shallowness.


The only people who could want this are people with no emotional depth whatsoever.
  • All incoming connection attempts are being blocked. If you want to speak to me you will find me either in Hek local, you can create a contract or make a thread about it in General Discussions. I will call you back. -
Violet Hurst
Fedaya Recon
#80 - 2014-09-27 18:13:38 UTC
Greetings,

i too favor interesting names over an easily parseable naming convention. The problems with searching items some encountered could imho be solved by having the text search (offered in the market, cargo and assets window, etc.) query the type field as well as the name.

When it comes to the stats of the new items, i'm all for a role-based distinction. However nobody seems to know yet how many of the current named module classes will be specialized that way and how many will just get consolidated into one "upgraded" item. A smaller number of modules leads to a smaller number of possible fittings, which in turn leads to less diversity in the game. (Which is a bad thing.) Fewer items also make the market less interesting for traders, which leads me to my last point:

The devblog stated there'd be virtually no reason to use anything else than meta 4, but forgot about one attribute: the price. In many cases you can get a meta 3 module for under a quarter of the price of the meta 4 variant. And in areas where every ISK counts, like being a new player or suicide ganking, this makes a remarkable difference.