EVE General Discussion

while the naming conventions currently, are interesting... they're also a pain in the ******* ass. if i want to fit a ship, i don't want to figure out what the named meta 4 module is, or if part of it's name has quote marks in it or not, etc.

while the new names are boring, they're less hassle. and i'd take less hassle over interesting any day of the week.

Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm that quick on the uptake and amazingly intelligent. But to me, memorizing the items that I constantly use for pvp is really simple. Hell, memorizing all the modules I use is really simple. I even know the names of the modules that I don't use.

The new names do seem to take away from the colour and richness of the universe of New Eden a bit. Hard to imagine that in the fraught and competitive future Eve is meant to create, all the developers of starship modules are going to stick to this one homogenous scheme. At least, I find it harder to believe than the current, much more realistic chaos. And I want to be able to believe New Eden. Believability, as far as it goes, is a part of what makes it fun to play. At least for me. But perhaps I'm in a minority with this.

Look at a real life example:
BMW 2014 M6 Gran Coupé 6C91 ---> Fast BMW Car

Would look AMAZING in their new ad!

Oceanus should be callled 'Hasbro' instead... :-(

Except that "sense" in your mind is only half of actual reality.

Preferring a cold and bland naming scheme is fine,
but there is more to naming items than having an easy way to find them.


People who are for this idea completely ignore the fact that reality shows
that it makes PERFECT SENSE that things have *actual* names!


I can't believe how emotionally dead so many people nowadays are.


But hey, if that's what you want ... why not have them rename ships too?

Minmatar Attack Frigate.
Minmatar Combat Frigate.
Minmatar Logistics Frigate.
Gallente Attack Frigate.
Gallente Combat Frigate.
Gallente Logistics Frigate.


This would be the exact same **** ... and no one in his right mind would want that!

Yet, all the emotionally blind people think it's a smart idea for modules,
showing that they lack the *understanding* of the depth that properly named modules actually give!

It would be far better to do something like what they did with implants. They still have the flavourful brand names, but also have a code on the end of each one that describes precisely what they do.

EG-605

Engineering, slot 6, 5% value

You can search for -6 in the market to bring up every regular type of slot 6 implant, and they didn't need to gut the names to do it.

I see a point both in CCP trying to change the modules and in the people complaining about the name changes.

CCP's one is simple, we have 4 modules, 4 meta levels, and usually only the meta 4 is meaningfull and sometimes better than T2. What they are doing is correct, trying to make every module fit a role if needed.

Player's point is also simple and correct, we cannot turn this game into a sea of scoped or ample modules, we love our "Arbalest" or "Prototype", or whatever prefix do modules have at the moment.

I see two solutions, the first is to add in the name of the module the keyword related to the new role intended, and we should get an Ample "Arbalest" Missile Launcher and so on.

The second is to tie the changed module to a corporation, instead of a faction, like a Scoped 'Duvolle Lab' 150mm Railgun.

I'll also add something more to this, EVE online has a massive pool of people ready to step up and volunteer to write up descriptions for every module you wish to change, and explain why Duvolle Lab made a Scoped module or why Roden did an Ample one. While this wont bring any more benefit to the game, it will increase the immersion in the EvE universe, a sandbox shaped by the players, even in the module descriptions.

You guys from CCP have just to ask the community, as you did with the ISD and other player based service.

You mean the descriptions of the modules or my posts?

If you mean the modules' one, I guess after the submission of the descriptions, once the best is picked, there is going to be some proof reading before making it live, and even so didn't CCP itself made several typos every time they implemented some new description?

Typos are going to get fixed, and still I prefer to have a typo that's going to be fixed at the next downtime minipatch than having a sickening amount of modules with the same dull descriptions and names.

I think the naming module after NPC corps is a good idea. As long as it makes sense, anyways.

I like the way that searching for "Scout" will show me a bunch of guns. Then I can search for "Prototype" will show me a bunch of better gun— oh wait, what's all this other stuff?

The worst bit about the new unified "Ample overdrive injector of the bear" naming scheme is that when I want an "ample" type of item, I'll be able to search for "ample" and have modules from every class show up. That's not what you want when you're trying to compare 125mm to 150mm rail guns.

Is there a way to have the "new" and the "old" naming schemes together?

As an example, take capacitor modifiers:

• Cap Recharger: "Barton Reactor Capacitor Recharger", "Fixed Parallel Link-Capacitor", "F-b10 Nominal Capacitor Regenerator", "Eutectic Capacitor Charge Array"
• Capacitor Power Relays: "Partial Power Plant Manager", "Alpha Reactor Control", "Type-E Power Core Modification", "Marked Generator Refitting", "Basic Capacitor Power Relay" and then there's a second group "Capacitor Power Relay I", "Type-D Power Core Modification", "Local Power Plant Manager", "Mark I Generator Refitting", "Beta Reactor Control"
• Capacitor Flux Coils have the same naming scheme (and parallel variant line for the "Basic" version)
• Capacitor Battery: "Ld-Acid", "Ohm", "F-4a Ld-Sulfate", "Peroxide"
• Capacitor Booster: "Brief", "Tapered", "F-RX Prototype", "Electrochemical"

The tech-geeks amongst us will nerd out on the names ("Ld-Acid" describes an ancient and ultra-reliable battery technology). Assuming one actually wants to get rid of "flavour" names like "Ld-Acid" and "Peroxide", what are the differences that matter?

• Enduring applies to cap modules that give you more recharge rate, so searching for "enduring" would list your capacitor flux coils right next to your low-capacitor-cost pulse lasers
• Ample applies to cap modules that give you more capacity, listed right alongside auto cannons with larger magazines

So we'd end up with Cap Rechargers like "Compact Cap Recharger", "Enduring Cap Recharger", and nothing else, because the new language doesn't have words to describe the variant in the middle (slightly less fitting, slightly better recharge rate). Thus the "vanilla" Cap Recharger I would have 10TF/1MW, 15% recovery, the Compact would end up with the 8TF 15% variant and the Enduring would end up with the 10TF 18% stats. There'd be nothing in between: where's the option of a 9TF & 16.5% recovery cap recharger for people whose fittings are quite tight? Are we allowed to have mixed names, "Compact Enduring Cap Recharger"? Will there already be enough variety with the Tech 1 vs Meta vs Tech 2?

I accept that with a better search feature we could search the market for "capacitor, ample, medium" and be shown all the capacitor-affecting modules that provide more capacity, while "railgun, ample, medium" would show us medium-sized rail guns with the ample modifier. This is apparently the direction that CCP wants to go, at the cost of the flavour of "Ld-Acid" versus "Peroxide" battery names.

Although I do get annoyed by verbose names such as "Type D Power Core Modification: Capacitor Power Relay", it's worth remembering that the term for things that have no flavour is "bland". Is there a way to preserve the flavour and also have the "ample cap recharger of the bear" style naming scheme?

Looking at existing solutions, we have a similar mixed-style naming scheme for implants, "Zainou 'Snapshot' Cruise Missiles CM-601". This way you can select "Snapshot" for all missile-oriented implants, with "Zainou" being more of a flavour item, "-6" providing a means to search for implants to fill slot 6, and the rest providing details about what skill is altered and by how much. We also have ammunition which has its size appended to the name in code letters: S/M/L/XL.

So how about "Ample 'E50' Capacitor Vampire M" alongside "Compact 'Ghoul' Capacitor Vampire M", "Scoped 'Knave' Capacitor Vampire M", and 'Enduring 'Nosferatu' Capacitor Vampire M'? Does that provide a decent mix of bland- and flavour-naming? In this case we're also making things easier to search for by standardising on 'capacitor vampire' as opposed to nosferatu/energy drain/energy siphon/power system drain panoply. This also means that searching for "capacitor" will list vampires alongside batteries and transfers. Back to power relays: "Compact 'Type-D' Capacitor Power Relay", "Enduring 'Beta Reactor' Capacitor Power Relay". Some flavour names will have to be truncated to avoid excess verbosity.

Aside from "ample" always being accompanied by the unwritten, unspoken "bust", I could get used to this new naming scheme as long as some attempt is made at preserving flavour. We'll also need a decent search facility which allows searching by a mixture of item size (small/medium/large/x-large/capital), item type (capacitor vampire), or flavour text ('nosferatu, medium' for example).