These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Private ship names

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Apollo Muvila
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1 - 2015-03-23 11:12:22 UTC
Having both private and public ship names would make it so much easier to identify assembled ships in your hangar.

If you have several of the same type of ship, it can be hard to remember what role each is fitted for without checking contents or viewing fitting. Currently, naming your ship "Scout", or "Solo Kite" will easily give away to enemies what you're flying.

Maybe make a field you can fill that will only show in the hangar, and if blank, defaults to the public name.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2015-03-23 11:20:35 UTC
I think this facility already exists - it's called google docs ;)

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2015-03-23 11:24:25 UTC
why not make yourself codes for your ships, cloaky scout? CLSC001

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#4 - 2015-03-23 13:17:34 UTC
Why not just rename your ships before you undock?
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#5 - 2015-03-23 13:58:50 UTC
You can rename your ship on the fly. :)

How did you Veterans start?
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#6 - 2015-03-24 19:59:09 UTC
Removed a troll post.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department
FireFrenzy
Cynosural Samurai
#7 - 2015-03-24 21:11:34 UTC
in the case of the Cloaky Scout you could even go for something like Cunning Shrike or whatever...

(couldnt come up with an S i'd describe as cunning on short notice... It's been a long day)
Dailar Toralen
Toralen Industries
#8 - 2015-03-24 22:11:36 UTC
You could simply rename when you undock. Also, I discovered something the hard way. Don't name your ship "Come at me Bro!" if your in a Destroyer in Lowsec lol. Just don't :)

We are Toralen Industries. It doesn't matter if you fight for money, idealogies, or because it's what you are good at and it doesn't matter if you fight threw trade, combat, or diplomacy. No matter what or how you fight, there's a place for you.
Chaos15
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2015-03-26 16:55:40 UTC
I agree with the poster. I have multiples of the same ships in one hanger, and even though I could create a "code" for naming convention it would be MUCH easier to have a private name or a label that only shows up in hanger.

Because the code would get quite complex if you're someone like me who has variations of similar fits in one hanger, I can't just name my self tank ships one thing when they may be different or my buffer ships one thing when they could have a different function.

Yes a secret code is possible, but why go through all that when a private name / label would be better and not terribly hard to implement.

And renaming my ship everytime i get into space isn't exactly practical for a few reasons:
1. Have to undock really fast to catch something or kill something and forget and wind up going on a roam or ending up in a big fight or hunting someone or whatever.
2. Just forget because well having to rename every ship every time you fly it and dock it is not practical.
3. Just no
Iain Cariaba
#10 - 2015-03-26 17:12:54 UTC
Chaos15 wrote:
I agree with the poster. I have multiples of the same ships in one hanger, and even though I could create a "code" for naming convention it would be MUCH easier to have a private name or a label that only shows up in hanger.

Because the code would get quite complex if you're someone like me who has variations of similar fits in one hanger, I can't just name my self tank ships one thing when they may be different or my buffer ships one thing when they could have a different function.

Because you can't possibly simplify a code? Can't possibly put an addendum on an existing coded name?

Chaos15 wrote:
Yes a secret code is possible, but why go through all that when a private name / label would be better and not terribly hard to implement.

Oh look, the "not hard to implement" falacy. Ease of implementation does not magically make a bad idea a good one.

Chaos15 wrote:
And renaming my ship everytime i get into space isn't exactly practical for a few reasons:
1. Have to undock really fast to catch something or kill something and forget and wind up going on a roam or ending up in a big fight or hunting someone or whatever.
2. Just forget because well having to rename every ship every time you fly it and dock it is not practical.
3. Just no

And coming up with two names for every ship is practical? Really? You do know that ship names are utterly irrelevant, right? Considering how often I've named a travel fit t3 something like "Cyno Tackle" I don't put any stock at all into what a ship is named.
Chaos15
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2015-03-26 17:33:11 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Chaos15 wrote:
I agree with the poster. I have multiples of the same ships in one hanger, and even though I could create a "code" for naming convention it would be MUCH easier to have a private name or a label that only shows up in hanger.

Because the code would get quite complex if you're someone like me who has variations of similar fits in one hanger, I can't just name my self tank ships one thing when they may be different or my buffer ships one thing when they could have a different function.

Because you can't possibly simplify a code? Can't possibly put an addendum on an existing coded name?

Chaos15 wrote:
Yes a secret code is possible, but why go through all that when a private name / label would be better and not terribly hard to implement.

Oh look, the "not hard to implement" falacy. Ease of implementation does not magically make a bad idea a good one.

Chaos15 wrote:
And renaming my ship everytime i get into space isn't exactly practical for a few reasons:
1. Have to undock really fast to catch something or kill something and forget and wind up going on a roam or ending up in a big fight or hunting someone or whatever.
2. Just forget because well having to rename every ship every time you fly it and dock it is not practical.
3. Just no

And coming up with two names for every ship is practical? Really? You do know that ship names are utterly irrelevant, right? Considering how often I've named a travel fit t3 something like "Cyno Tackle" I don't put any stock at all into what a ship is named.



Nobody said you HAD to do both names. An optional label or something, how is it a bad idea if it doesn't effect those who don't wish to use it nor is it impacting the game in any negative way.

Its useful for those of us who have a lot of ships. Sure some a lot of people don't put stock into the name of ships, still doesn't make it a good idea to name my Keres Damp-Fit or Tackle-Fit.

There is no reason to be against it. If it was an idea that would have some baring on how you played you would have a say, but it doesn't so being against it simply because you don't want to do it doesn't make any sense?

"Oh I don't do PVE, WHY IS THERE PVE in the game??!?!? You can simply kill other real player ships to make isk"
Iain Cariaba
#12 - 2015-03-26 17:43:47 UTC
Chaos15 wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Chaos15 wrote:
I agree with the poster. I have multiples of the same ships in one hanger, and even though I could create a "code" for naming convention it would be MUCH easier to have a private name or a label that only shows up in hanger.

Because the code would get quite complex if you're someone like me who has variations of similar fits in one hanger, I can't just name my self tank ships one thing when they may be different or my buffer ships one thing when they could have a different function.

Because you can't possibly simplify a code? Can't possibly put an addendum on an existing coded name?

Chaos15 wrote:
Yes a secret code is possible, but why go through all that when a private name / label would be better and not terribly hard to implement.

Oh look, the "not hard to implement" falacy. Ease of implementation does not magically make a bad idea a good one.

Chaos15 wrote:
And renaming my ship everytime i get into space isn't exactly practical for a few reasons:
1. Have to undock really fast to catch something or kill something and forget and wind up going on a roam or ending up in a big fight or hunting someone or whatever.
2. Just forget because well having to rename every ship every time you fly it and dock it is not practical.
3. Just no

And coming up with two names for every ship is practical? Really? You do know that ship names are utterly irrelevant, right? Considering how often I've named a travel fit t3 something like "Cyno Tackle" I don't put any stock at all into what a ship is named.



Nobody said you HAD to do both names. An optional label or something, how is it a bad idea if it doesn't effect those who don't wish to use it nor is it impacting the game in any negative way.

Its useful for those of us who have a lot of ships. Sure some a lot of people don't put stock into the name of ships, still doesn't make it a good idea to name my Keres Damp-Fit or Tackle-Fit.

There is no reason to be against it. If it was an idea that would have some baring on how you played you would have a say, but it doesn't so being against it simply because you don't want to do it doesn't make any sense?

"Oh I don't do PVE, WHY IS THERE PVE in the game??!?!? You can simply kill other real player ships to make isk"

1. Simply because it could be optional doesn't make it a good idea.
2. Having a naming scheme that allows you to identify your own ships makes more sense for those of us who have a lot of ships.
3. Do you really need CCP to idiot proof your hangar for you?
4. I think it's a bad idea. I need no reason beyond that to be against it.
Davey Talvanen
Kingsparrow Wormhole Division
Birds of Prey.
#13 - 2015-03-26 21:53:59 UTC
i support this idea. Why are there people going "There are workarounds that can work for more effort so **** QOL and make **** hard for lolz -1"
Iain Cariaba
#14 - 2015-03-26 22:26:49 UTC
Davey Talvanen wrote:
i support this idea. Why are there people going "There are workarounds that can work for more effort so **** QOL and make **** hard for lolz -1"

Because it's not "there's a workaround." This idea is a workaround for actually using your brain for something other than to fill the void betwen your ears. Refer to point #3 in my previous post.
Chaos15
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2015-03-27 15:16:02 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Davey Talvanen wrote:
i support this idea. Why are there people going "There are workarounds that can work for more effort so **** QOL and make **** hard for lolz -1"

Because it's not "there's a workaround." This idea is a workaround for actually using your brain for something other than to fill the void betwen your ears. Refer to point #3 in my previous post.


I don't think "use your brain" is a great argument for someone with a <60% efficiency
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#16 - 2015-03-27 15:37:32 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
I have over 100 ships in my hanger. I would prefer to just code the names myself thankyouverymuch.

It's not even that hard.
Here, use my naming scheme (it's not like it protects me against D-Scan)

F111a - PoPo

The first letter signifies what type the ship is; T1, Faction, Pirate, T2, or T3.
The first number digit is class; 1 for frigate all the way up to 6 for capitals.
The second number digit is hull type; I often have about 4 to 9 different types of hulls within a each class. The ship type associated with this digit can change over time.
The third number digit is what version of that specific hull type it is... mostly it is for keeping count of how many I have gone through.
The last letter signifies what it's specialty is. Armor, Shield, Nano, Range, Bait, etc.

And then a short but funny name after that.


See? Five characters and I have a wealth of info at a glance! And to everyone else it is nonsense.

How did you Veterans start?
Iain Cariaba
#17 - 2015-03-27 15:43:40 UTC
Chaos15 wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Davey Talvanen wrote:
i support this idea. Why are there people going "There are workarounds that can work for more effort so **** QOL and make **** hard for lolz -1"

Because it's not "there's a workaround." This idea is a workaround for actually using your brain for something other than to fill the void betwen your ears. Refer to point #3 in my previous post.


I don't think "use your brain" is a great argument for someone with a <60% efficiency

Because effeciency matters how? Because I generally solo/small gang PvP? Because I couldn't give a **** less about some bullshit efficiency? Because I'd rather have fun, and maybe lose some ships, rather than be just another f1 monkey blueballing everything in sight?

Oh wait. I guess I should've looked at your killboard before I typed all that. After all, it's just the opinion of a highsec wardec whore that spends his days camping stations. Every time you leave highsec without 20 people on your back you end up losing a ship. It's reall easy to maintain that 90%+ efficiency when you use off grid boosts and fight things that don't shoot back. Sorry, I'll biomass all my alts and unsub all my accounts before I'll ever consider playing like you do. CODE. gets more respect from me than wardec whores.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#18 - 2015-03-27 16:28:06 UTC
When you live in wormholes, you come up with solutions to that.

So each ship in a hangar usually got a tag.

For example:
♫ pve
♥ pvp
☼ scanning thing
☼☼ ship with hackers and analyzers

So you go to the searchbar and find the ship you've been looking for.

I just told you how to fix the issue. You're welcome.
Valkin Mordirc
#19 - 2015-03-28 12:08:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Valkin Mordirc
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Chaos15 wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Davey Talvanen wrote:
i support this idea. Why are there people going "There are workarounds that can work for more effort so **** QOL and make **** hard for lolz -1"

Because it's not "there's a workaround." This idea is a workaround for actually using your brain for something other than to fill the void betwen your ears. Refer to point #3 in my previous post.


I don't think "use your brain" is a great argument for someone with a <60% efficiency

Because effeciency matters how? Because I generally solo/small gang PvP? Because I couldn't give a **** less about some bullshit efficiency? Because I'd rather have fun, and maybe lose some ships, rather than be just another f1 monkey blueballing everything in sight?

Oh wait. I guess I should've looked at your killboard before I typed all that. After all, it's just the opinion of a highsec wardec ***** that spends his days camping stations. Every time you leave highsec without 20 people on your back you end up losing a ship. It's reall easy to maintain that 90%+ efficiency when you use off grid boosts and fight things that don't shoot back. Sorry, I'll biomass all my alts and unsub all my accounts before I'll ever consider playing like you do. CODE. gets more respect from me than wardec whores.




Your rage is showing. Cover it up it's not polite.

Though really. Calm the **** down,What? If efficiency doesn't bother you. Why rage about it?

Or is it you just like to rage? Little immature. =S

Also who are you to judge about what type of PVP is better? Entitled much? Because from what I gather, you are saying every type of PVP is **** asides from the L33t Solo/small Gang PVP you partake in. Roll
#DeleteTheWeak
Iain Cariaba
#20 - 2015-03-28 15:11:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Iain Cariaba
Valkin Mordirc wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Chaos15 wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Davey Talvanen wrote:
i support this idea. Why are there people going "There are workarounds that can work for more effort so **** QOL and make **** hard for lolz -1"

Because it's not "there's a workaround." This idea is a workaround for actually using your brain for something other than to fill the void betwen your ears. Refer to point #3 in my previous post.


I don't think "use your brain" is a great argument for someone with a <60% efficiency

Because effeciency matters how? Because I generally solo/small gang PvP? Because I couldn't give a **** less about some bullshit efficiency? Because I'd rather have fun, and maybe lose some ships, rather than be just another f1 monkey blueballing everything in sight?

Oh wait. I guess I should've looked at your killboard before I typed all that. After all, it's just the opinion of a highsec wardec ***** that spends his days camping stations. Every time you leave highsec without 20 people on your back you end up losing a ship. It's reall easy to maintain that 90%+ efficiency when you use off grid boosts and fight things that don't shoot back. Sorry, I'll biomass all my alts and unsub all my accounts before I'll ever consider playing like you do. CODE. gets more respect from me than wardec whores.




Your rage is showing. Cover it up it's not polite.

Though really. Calm the **** down,What? If efficiency doesn't bother you. Why rage about it?

Or is it you just like to rage? Little immature. =S

Also who are you to judge about what type of PVP is better? Entitled much? Because from what I gather, you are saying every type of PVP is **** asides from the L33t Solo/small Gang PVP you partake in. Roll

Ohh, did I hit a sore point with you in a post that had nothing at all to do with you?

To bad.

How about this? I have ~400 more likes on my posts than you have. Therefore my epeen is bigger than yours, ergo your opinion is invalid because of some meaningless, unrelated number.

Pretty much the same thing. There ya go.
12Next page